Preamble

The House met at half-past Eleven o'clock

PRAYERS

[MR. SPEAKER in the chair]

Oral Answers to Questions — TREASURY

The Chancellor of the Exchequer was asked—

Family Incomes

Helen Jackson: What measures he is taking to increase the incomes of families with children. [150135]

The Paymaster General (Dawn Primarolo): The Government are committed to supporting all families, recognising the extra costs and responsibilities that come with parenthood and targeting resources at those who need them most, when they need them most. As a result of measures introduced during this Parliament, families with children will be on average £8.50 a year better off.

Helen Jackson: Does my hon. Friend agree that raising the income of families with children depends on our having a stable economy where industry and public services thrive and everyone has the chance of a good job? Does she further agree that the Government's determination to eliminate child poverty through progressive fiscal policies and the working families tax credit must work alongside the statutory minimum wage, which must be maintained or even enhanced so that employers can play their part too?

Dawn Primarolo: I agree with my hon. Friend that the national minimum wage has an important role to play in raising the income of all those in work, particularly families, but I stress that the working families tax credit, particularly in respect of child care costs, the increase in child benefit and the introduction of the children's tax credit in April will make a huge contribution to the budgets of working families and ensure that the Government and employers play their part in tackling poverty in our society.

Mr. Ian Bruce: Surely the Minister will have seen the helpful leaflet that was produced by the citizens advice bureaux telling us just what a mess the Government are making of the working families tax credit. Has she spoken to her colleagues in the Department of Social Security who believe that the Treasury is making

a mess of it and will she look again to see whether she can actually help working parents? Clearly, as always, the Treasury has been all spin and no delivery.

Dawn Primarolo: I would recommend that the hon. Gentleman reads the whole of the CAB report. If he does, he will see that it welcomes the working families tax credit and acknowledges that 1.1 million families are being helped to the tune of £30 a week or more, compared with what they received under family credit. That is a contribution to the reduction in child poverty. The CAB report identified that, of the 90,000 calls that the bureaux received, there were only a handful of exceptional cases, and it gave one example involving a bad employer.
I repeat to the hon. Gentleman what I said to the CAB. The working families tax credit has built-in protection against bad employers, but the overwhelming majority of employers welcome it and recognise the contribution that it makes to enabling their work force to stay in work, particularly by helping with child care costs, and to reducing child poverty, which the previous Government forced to increase.

Full Employment

Mr. John McFall: If he will make a statement on the prospects for achieving full employment. [150136]

The Chancellor of the Exchequer (Mr. Gordon Brown): Employment has risen by over 1 million since May 1997 and there are now 1.1 million vacancies across the United Kingdom. In this Parliament 250,000 young people have moved from welfare into work in only three years since the start of the new deal, at around half the estimated cost. Our challenge now is to extend new opportunities to areas which in recent decades have too often been left behind. In some of our high unemployment areas the rate of new business creation is one sixth of that in the more prosperous cities and towns.
We are today publishing a consultation document on a new and generous tax credit for community finance intermediaries to encourage new flows of private investment to areas where investment is needed most. The tax credit will be implemented in a new way by competition for resources with the tax credit awarded to the best bids for economic regeneration. Taken together, all our new investment initiatives are estimated to increase investment in high unemployment areas by £1 billion and to create thousands more jobs. Copies of the consultation document are available in the Vote Office.

Mr. McFall: I congratulate my right hon. Friend the Chancellor on the transformation in employment over the past few years. However, as he is aware, there are disadvantaged communities in my constituency and elsewhere where the light of increased employment has not shone. In addition, the rate of business starts in those communities is very low. My constituency has the sixth lowest number of business starts in the United Kingdom. What further measures is my right hon. Friend taking to ensure that disadvantaged areas can play a full part in the economic and business life of our society?

Mr. Brown: I am grateful to my hon. Friend, who works hard to create new jobs and opportunities in his


constituency. He is absolutely right. The business creation rate in his area is 19 per 10,000 resident adults. That needs to be increased. Today's measures, in addition to previous measures, will help to increase the ability of people to start businesses and cut the costs involved. We are also expanding the new deal, which others want to abolish. Youth unemployment is at the lowest level since 1975; long-term unemployment is at the lowest level since the 1970s; and last week's unemployment claimant count was the lowest since 1974.

Mr. Nigel Evans: The Chancellor announces a new tax credit to help to create new businesses, but why does he feel it necessary to clobber existing businesses with new rules and regulations and new stealth taxes, the latest of which is the climate change levy? Has he assessed the impact that that might have on jobs in horticulture and manufacturing, because it will increase their costs? Among those affected will be Mr. Eddie Topping of Barton Grange, a horticulturist in my constituency, who employs 35 people in the winter and 70 people in the summer. Horticulture will be hit very hard indeed. Will the right hon. Gentleman reconsider that dreadful tax?

Mr. Brown: I thought that the hon. Gentleman was going to thank us for the fact that unemployment has fallen by 44 per cent. in his constituency since the election. As for the climate change levy, far from being a stealth measure, it is the result of a process of consultation that started with a report by the president of the Confederation of British Industry. Its recommendations are being implemented in consultation with industry. The levy gives no revenue benefit to the Treasury because all the money is passed back in a national insurance cut for employers. [Interruption.] Well, Opposition Members are drawing me towards attacking Conservative policy, which I am reluctant to do until there is another campaign.
On businesses and taxation, the small business tax rate has been cut from 23p to 20p—something that the hon. Gentleman's Government never did; there is a small business starting rate of 10p; mainstream corporation tax has been cut from 33p to 30p; and, of course, the income tax that many small businesses pay has been cut from 23p to 22p. The hon. Gentleman should be congratulating us on the jobs that we have created.

Mr. Dennis Skinner: Is my right hon. Friend aware that in the north Derbyshire coalfield area, where every deep-mined coal mine was closed in 15 years of Tory Government, there are still pockets of high unemployment? We appreciate the £24 million for the Shirebrook employment zone that was recently passed on by the Treasury. However—hon. Members should remember these words because they will hear them a lot in the next Parliament—we want the Markham employment zone, which will create 9,300 jobs, and junction 29(A) off the M1. We do not care what kind of employment it creates. Oil companies can go up there so long as they do not line the pockets of the shadow Chancellor of the Exchequer. While he has been making money on the side, many of my constituents have had to go on the dole. It is the job of this Government to put that right now and in the next Parliament.

Mr. Brown: I am grateful to my hon. Friend. I take what he says as a Budget representation for next week. He is absolutely right. It will be necessary to expand the new deal in some areas, to increase the number of employment action teams and to do more to tackle long-term and youth unemployment in those areas where people have been left behind. That is possible because we are committed to the new deal. It would not happen if the new deal were abolished under Conservative policies.

Mr. Michael Portillo: Will the Chancellor of the Exchequer put right the hon. Member for Dumbarton (Mr. McFall), who described a transformation in unemployment? Is it not the truth that since the right hon. Gentleman became Chancellor, unemployment has been falling more slowly than before? [Interruption.] It is true—let me give the figures. Will the right hon. Gentleman admit that more jobs were created in the last three years of the Conservative Government than have been created in the first three years of the Labour Government? Will he admit that, whatever he says about the new deal, the fact is that it has had no impact on unemployment; and that youth unemployment has also been falling more slowly than it was before? Is it not the case that the last Conservative Government created 69,000 manufacturing jobs and that under the current Government 350,000 manufacturing jobs have been destroyed? Is not the real truth that there can be no prospect of full employment under the current Government because they are determined to raise taxes relentlessly year after year, while other countries cut their taxes? The Chancellor of the Exchequer is increasing the tax burden and putting at risk this country's jobs.

Mr. Brown: I know that the right hon. Gentleman was out of Parliament for some time, but he does not seem to know what has been happening in the United Kingdom. Even the International Monetary Fund report that he was quoting last night said that the new deal programmes
appear to be working well".
The right hon. Gentleman should join other Conservative Members who have said that the new deal is a good measure.

Mr. John Bercow: Name them.

Mr. Brown: I believe that it is terrible mistake for the Conservative party to tell the young and long-term unemployed of this country that it would abolish the new deal. What we have achieved—

Mr. Bercow: Name them.

Mr. Brown: I am reluctant to name people, but the shadow Chancellor, before he returned to Parliament, said that, on the face of it, the new deal was working well.
Youth unemployment is now the lowest since 1975; long-term unemployment is now the lowest since the 1970s; unemployment among men is the lowest since 1980; unemployment among women is the lowest since 1976. If unemployment was lower under the Conservatives, how can those figures be accurate? Unemployment is now lower than it was at any time under the Conservative Government.

Mr. Portillo: The Chancellor of the Exchequer is absolutely unable to deny any of my points. Unemployment has been falling more slowly under the present Government than under the last. The present Government have destroyed manufacturing jobs; the last Government created manufacturing jobs. The right hon. Gentleman is unable to provide a shred of evidence that the new deal has helped the young unemployed because the rate of youth unemployment has been falling more slowly under the present Government than it was before.
Let me ask the right hon. Gentleman this question: how exactly does it help employment to pile an extra £5 billion of taxes on to business? How does it help employment when the Secretary of State for Trade and Industry reacts with contempt to the complaints made by business about being over-regulated? How does an energy tax that is particularly directed at manufacturing industry and the constituencies of Labour Members help employment in this country? Will the Chancellor admit that, even if in the Budget he were able to take something off income tax, he has presided over an increase in taxation equivalent to 10p in the pound and would merely be the 10p-up-2p-off Chancellor?

Mr. Brown: If the shadow Chancellor denies the existence of rising employment and falling unemployment in this country, the country will no longer listen to him. In the past four years, as a result of the new deal, 274,000 young people have moved from welfare to work. Instead of criticising that, the right hon. Gentleman should congratulate us. Now, long-term unemployed people are moving from welfare to work; lone parents are moving from welfare to work; disabled men and women, who were denied the right to work for 20 years, now have better chances of moving into work. As for the Conservatives and their policy of attacking us on the economy,
Governments are in a strong position when the economy is doing well. There is absolutely no point in denying that … I'm not going to go around saying the economy is not doing well.
That was the shadow Chancellor speaking on 23 March 2000.

Mr. Portillo: Every time the Chancellor fails to deny what I have said, the more eloquent it becomes. He cannot deny that unemployment has been falling more slowly under the Labour Government than it was under the Conservative Government, nor that youth unemployment is falling more slowly under the Labour Government than it was under the Conservative Government, so he cannot sustain his claim that the new deal has had any impact at all.
Would not a real policy for employment depend on a real policy for cutting taxation in this country? Is it not absolutely absurd that the right hon. Gentleman has raised taxes in this country, forced many families into means-testing and forced people to plead with the state for sufficient income to pay the taxes that he has imposed?
When we come to office, we will abolish taxes on savings, thus helping 16 million people. We will let pensioners have another £2,000 of tax-free income a year. We will recognise marriage in the system and we will provide extra assistance to families with children. We will abolish the climate change levy to help with employment. We will abolish IR35 to help with employment.

As always, there is only one party that believes in lower taxes and only one party that will deliver lower taxes, and that is the Conservative party.

Mr. Brown: Let me remind the right hon. Gentleman of something.
Even after three years of Labour government, we are less taxed and less regulated relatively than our continental partners.
That was the shadow Chancellor on 5 July.
Why does the right hon. Gentleman not thank us for the fact that unemployment in his constituency has fallen by 51 per cent? Youth unemployment has fallen by 81 per cent. Long-term unemployment has fallen by 79 per cent. The Conservatives were in government for 18 years. They are in danger of being in opposition for more than 18 years.

Mr. Derek Twigg: Unemployment in my constituency has fallen considerably. It is certainly much less than the 18 per cent. that it reached when the Tories were in power. However, it remains stubbornly high, and the situation was not helped by the announcement by Ineos Chlor yesterday that it was to shed 600 jobs, many of which are well paid and highly skilled. One of the main reasons for the scale of those job losses is lack of investment by the previous owners, ICI, which did not invest for more than 10 years. Does my right hon. Friend agree that it is important that businesses invest for the long term, not the short term? Will my right hon. Friend ensure that disadvantaged areas such as Halton are the subject of special measures that he has mentioned? Ineos has made a grant application to help it restructure the business in Runcorn, which may need Treasury approval. Will my right hon. Friend consider the application favourably?

Mr. Brown: I am grateful to my hon. Friend. Job losses are personal tragedies, and the Government wish to do what they can. I think that my hon. Friend will agree with me that that is why we need a new deal, which the Opposition would abolish. It is why we need regional development agencies with economic strategies for the north-west, which would also be abolished. It is also why we need the working families tax credit and special measures for the over-50s, which again would be abolished. It is precisely because we know that it is our duty to help people cope with change that we are prepared to take these actions, and will continue to do so.

Tax Revenue

Mr. Simon Hughes: What his forecast is of the revenue from (a) personal taxation, (b) corporate taxation and (c) VAT for each of the next seven years. [150137]

The Chief Secretary to the Treasury (Mr. Andrew Smith): Forecasts of tax revenues were published in tables B8 and B11 of the pre-Budget report. Updated forecasts will be published in the "Financial Statement and Budget Report" next week.

Mr. Hughes: I predicted that reply. The projections show that the tax take over the next five years will be constant as a proportion of national income. However,


investment in health over the term of this Government is on average lower than it was under the term of the Major Administration, the previous Tory Government. Average investment in education over the Government's term of office is less than it was on average under the Tory Government. On the same basis, investment in pensions is less than it was.
Have Treasury Ministers got the message from the public that they have no desire next week to be bribed with their own money, following a tax-cutting agenda that the Tories are suggesting? The public want real extra investment in public services such as education and health and for groups in the community who need it and deserve it, such as pensioners throughout the United Kingdom?

Mr. Smith: It is because we made tough choices, which the hon. Gentleman's party opposed, that we have been able to get the national debt down from 44 per cent. of gross domestic product to 33 per cent., and it is due to fall to 30 per cent. That is establishing the strong foundation for the investment that is under way—a doubling of investment across the spending review period, with record increases in health, education, transport and fighting crime, the people's priorities. We can deliver because we took tough choices and built a strong economy, which the hon. Gentleman's party would never do.

Mr. Christopher Leslie: Does my right hon. Friend agree that it is important to continue the sensible and prudent planning and forecasting of revenue and expenditure? I urge the Government to ignore and not be tempted by the advice of either the Liberal Democrats, who seem to think that money grows on trees, or the Conservatives, whose sums never seem to add up.

Mr. Smith: Yes, indeed. I shall take my hon. Friend's comments as a Budget representation. I can assure him that we have no intention of being drawn down the path of irresponsibility proffered by either the Conservative party or the Liberal Democrats.

Mr. Michael Fallon: If everything is so rosy, why is the European Union worried about the Government's future taxation and spending plans, and why did the International Monetary Fund warn yesterday of
negative consequences for investment and growth"?
How can the Government describe that as vindication?

Mr. Smith: That is a total misreading of what the IMF said. Let me give the hon. Gentleman the quotes. The directors stated that
plans to increase public investment in infrastructure and human capital are justified in the light of the evidence".
They said:
even after taking account of recent spending decisions, the fiscal position remains sound and fully consistent with the authorities' medium-term fiscal framework.
The acting chairman, summing up, commended the authorities for the continued strong performance of the United Kingdom economy.

Education Investment

Mr. Bill Rammell: What his assessment is of the impact on Government finances of his plans for future investment in education. [150138]

The Chief Secretary to the Treasury (Mr. Andrew Smith): As I said, because we took tough choices, stuck to prudent fiscal rules and built strong public finances, we are able to raise capital investment in education from £2.4 billion in the current year to £3.8 billion by 2004, a real-terms increase of 48 per cent. Total education spending will rise by £11.7 billion over the same period, an increase of 16 per cent. in real terms.

Mr. Rammell: I thank my right hon. Friend for that response. When I recently visited the Water Lane primary school in my constituency, the head teacher told me that in 25 years of teaching, she had never known so much extra money going into schools. Given that capital spending on Essex schools has more than doubled in the past year, that is hardly surprising. Does my right hon. Friend agree that that investment needs to increase in future years, as set out in the three-year comprehensive spending review, and does he share my concern that were any party to come to power committed to cut that investment by £16 billion, that would be entirely the wrong way forward?

Mr. Smith: I share my hon. Friend's concerns. I am grateful for his remarks and those of his constituent. Those remarks reflect the Government's record in already increasing average spending per pupil by £300 in real terms. That will be a £450 real increase next year. As for the future, by 2004 we will increase real-terms education spending by one third—a bigger real increase in the early years of this Government than in the entire period of office of our predecessors.

Mr. Oliver Letwin: As the Chief Secretary and the Chancellor are so keen to take comments as Budget representations, will they take the remarks of Mr. Chris Woodhead, the former chief inspector of schools, as a Budget representation, when he states:
As a taxpayer, I could not stomach the way in which public money was being squandered"?
Do they agree with Mr. Woodhead that the Chancellor and the Prime Minister have
presided over a set of initiatives that has wasted taxpayers' money, distracted teachers from their real responsibilities and encapsulated the worst of the discredited ideology that has done so much damage since the 1960s"?
Do they agree that the Government have not delivered, and that
a generation of children has been betrayed"?

Mr. Smith: Education has suffered in the past from being turned into an ideological battleground. I would caution the hon. Gentleman and his colleagues against trying to do the same on the basis of those comments. The truth is that under Chris Woodhead's leadership, Ofsted made a distinguished contribution to raising standards, worked closely with us on the literacy and numeracy


strategy, praised what we did in respect of cutting class sizes for infants—a policy opposed by the Opposition—[Interruption.]

Mr. Speaker: Order. The hon. Member for West Dorset (Mr. Letwin) asked a question. He must show some courtesy when the reply is delivered.

Mr. Smith: What the hon. Member for West Dorset (Mr. Letwin) should do is praise the accomplishment of this Government, which is based on their work on raising literacy and numeracy standards from the disgraceful level to which they fell under the previous Government, raising the proportion of pupils who achieve top GCSE grades and turning around 650 failing schools that would have continued to suffer under the Conservative Administration.

Employment Statistics

Gillian Merron: If he will make a statement on changes in employment and unemployment over the past 12 months. [150139]

The Paymaster General (Dawn Primarolo): Since the Government were elected, employment has risen by more than 1 million. Over the past year, it has risen by 225,000 and International Labour Organisation unemployment has fallen by 169,000. The claimant count now stands at just 5,000 above 1 million.

Gillian Merron: My hon. Friend will be aware that unemployment in Lincoln has almost halved since the general election, while long-term youth unemployment has decreased by 86 per cent. However, that positive picture is not exactly uniform across the city, as people in wards such as Park and Abbey remain more likely to be out of work. Will my hon. Friend step up the application of targeted measures to areas such as Abbey and Park, to ensure that all my constituents can benefit equally from the stable economy created by the Government?

Dawn Primarolo: My hon. Friend correctly identifies that there are particular areas where it is necessary for the Government to concentrate our effort, perhaps through the expansion of new deal opportunities to help people into work. We must continue to remove the barriers to ensure that people can move from welfare into work and be financially secure. Of course, we must also continue to ensure that that work pays and that people can progress through work using lifelong learning. It is through all those measures, including expansion of the new deal, that we intend to continue to drive down unemployment, to move to full employment and to ensure that all the talents of all the people in this country can be used.

Mr. John Bercow: In reflecting on employment policy, does the Paymaster General, as a former member of the Bennite left-wing Campaign group of Labour MPs, now accept that that free-market capitalist the United States of America has been dramatically more successful than most countries in creating and retaining jobs? To that end, has she made any assessment of the

efficacy of the Regulatory Flexibility Act 1980 and the Small Business Regulatory Enforcement Fairness Act 1996? If not, why not?

Dawn Primarolo: I should like to remind the hon. Gentleman of a couple of facts. First, the United States has the welfare-to-work partnership, which includes 10,000 firms. Secondly, it was the Conservative party that said in government that unemployment was a "price worth paying", following which it rose to the record level of 2.9 million. It is under this Government that 1 million jobs have been created and that long-term and youth unemployment are down. There are 1.1 million vacancies in the economy and the challenge is to match them with the people who are seeking jobs. The hon. Gentleman has no answers to that proposition.

Ms Rosie Winterton: In my constituency, we have a new deal for communities area, which means that about £50 million will be invested in the next 10 years to help people back into work, among other things. Thanks to this Government, big capital projects are also starting, such as the North Bridge road and the transport interchange. In the light of my right hon. Friend the Chancellor's earlier statement about community investment, will my hon. Friend consider what incentives can be given to big companies to ensure that they employ local people in areas of high deprivation?

Dawn Primarolo: I reassure my hon. Friend that that is precisely why my right hon. Friend the Chancellor has emphasised the importance of investment in our communities and, in particular, the use of tax credits in that work to build on the new deal for communities. I shall certainly bear her comments in mind.

Mr. Crispin Blunt: Given that the word "employment" appears in the title of another Department, is not the fact that this question was not transferred an example of the Treasury's astonishing contempt for other Departments in Whitehall?

Dawn Primarolo: If the hon. Gentleman does not understand that employment is part of the economy, I cannot help him further.

Euro

Mr. Alan Simpson: What rate of conversion between the pound and the euro is compatible with the UK's long-term economic interests. [150140]

The Chancellor of the Exchequer (Mr. Gordon Brown): The best contribution that the Government can make to delivering a stable and competitive pound over the medium term is to adhere to stability-oriented policies based on delivering low inflation and sound public finances.

Mr. Simpson: I am grateful to my right hon. Friend for a non-committal statement on the exchange rate—it is exactly what prudence would have expected—but can he confirm that even the most gung-ho and enthusiastic of his current or former Cabinet colleagues has not urged him to join the single currency at either yesterday's or today's rates of exchange? If there is a case to be made


for devaluing the pound, which is implicit in the representations that they make, will he use his powers of persuasion to urge them to recognise that macroeconomic consequences will follow in respect of precisely the issues that he has set out—inflation, interest rates and the implications for personal and company taxation?

Mr. Brown: It is precisely because there are major issues to be addressed in any decision about the euro that, in 1997, we said that although we supported the euro in principle, in practice five economic tests have to be met. We said that we would review the matter and make those assessments early in the next Parliament—indeed, within the first two years. That is precisely what we shall do. We support the euro in principle because of the benefits. We believe that there are constitutional issues, but if the economic benefits to Britain are clear and unambiguous there is a case for joining—but the decision would be based on the five economic tests. If we were to recommend yes, there would be a referendum.

Sir Peter Tapsell: Does the Chancellor agree that the highly relevant question asked by the hon. Member for Nottingham, South (Mr. Simpson) is unanswerable? Does the right hon. Gentleman accept that our national experience with the pre-war gold standard, the Bretton Woods dollar standard and the exchange rate mechanism has surely proved that any fixed rate exchange arrangement must, inevitably, become incompatible with our long-term economic interests? Will he use his great influence in such matters to ensure that this country does not re-enter any form of monetary straitjacket imposed on us from overseas?

Mr. Brown: It is precisely because of the major issues involved in dealing with the relationship between the euro and the pound that we have set the five tests. We shall assess those matters early in the next Parliament and report accordingly—but I take it that the hon. Gentleman is criticising the policy of the previous Government.

Mr. Ben Bradshaw: Is not it the case, despite the recent exchange rate, that, to quote the International Monetary Fund report again, our economy has enjoyed
the longest period of sustained non-inflationary output growth in more than 30 years"?
Is not it a counsel of despair to suggest that the best or, indeed, the only way to maintain competitiveness is through a weak sterling policy?

Mr. Brown: The IMF report does mention the euro and says that our proposals to make assessments based on economic tests are the right way forward. The report, as my hon. Friend said, commends the authorities
for the continued strong performance of the U.K. economy.
It continues:
Sound fiscal and monetary policies have contributed to the achievements
and says that, looking ahead, directors expected that



output growth would remain robust, with a substantial increase in public spending from measures announced in last year's budget offsetting slower private consumption growth … prospects for inflation remain benign".




If the previous Government had achieved a good report from the IMF in any one year, as we have received in every year of our government, they might have some cause to ask us questions about the economy, but they never did.

Mr. Richard Ottaway: Following his embarrassing interview on the "Today" programme, when he refused to discuss his so-called tests, will the Chancellor at least give Parliament some straight answers? Does he agree that his five tests on the euro are nothing more than a sham, that they are completely subjective, and that they add up to four fudges and a fiddle? The best way to protect Britain's long-term economic interest is to keep the pound by voting Conservative at the next election.

Mr. Brown: The IMF report quoted by Conservative Members overnight suggests that the five economic tests are the best way forward. They are not arbitrary tests; they are tests concerning the issues that are relevant to the United Kingdom economy—[Interruption.] If the right hon. Member for Kensington and Chelsea (Mr. Portillo) and his friends now think that it is not relevant to assess first, investment; secondly, employment; thirdly, manufacturing industry and financial services; fourthly, flexibility; and fifthly, the degree of sustainable convergence, it is clear that their policy is built purely on dogma.

Public Service Investment

Dr. Nick Palmer: If he will make an assessment of the implications of the comprehensive spending review for future investment in public services. [150141]

The Chief Secretary to the Treasury (Mr. Andrew Smith): The plans set out in last year's spending review will double public net capital investment over the next three years to £19 billion. The Government will reverse years of underinvestment in order to deliver modern schools and hospitals and an integrated transport network.

Dr. Palmer: In Broxtowe, there are two new schools, numerous refurbishments and two major hospital developments. Does my right hon. Friend agree with my constituents, who feel that such action makes more sense than the last Government's policy of squeezing public investment in order to pay for their other policy of high unemployment?

Mr. Smith: Yes, indeed. My hon. Friend gives excellent examples of the benefits of public investment in his constituency. I well recall discussing these and other matters with him at the consultation meeting with his constituents that he arranged for me last year. The good news he reports is proof that the Government are listening and delivering.

Mr. Edward Davey: What contingency plans does the comprehensive spending review contain for increasing investment in London's public transport services if the public-private partnership is not concluded by the end of the financial year? Is the Minister aware that alternative public investment plans for


the tube, first presented by the Liberal Democrats, are now supported by more than 80 per cent. of Londoners, by Bob Kiley, and—following their latest U-turn—even by half of those on the Conservative Front Bench? Will the right hon. Gentleman therefore also support a plan that is safer and more cost-effective than the PPP, draw back the curtain, and come down the yellow brick road?

Mr. Smith: The refurbishment and modernisation of the tube in London is of the utmost importance. That is why we have presented the public-private partnership as the best means of delivering cost-effectively the modernisation that is needed. The operation of trains will remain in the public sector, health and safety will remain independently in that sector, and discussions must take place—and are continuing—with Mr. Kiley and with Transport for London. It is in the interests of Londoners and the future of the modernisation of our tube that those talks succeed, and that through the public-private partnership we avoid the overruns on costs and time that characterised the Jubilee line extension.

Public Investment (Emergency Services)

Mr. Jim Fitzpatrick: If he will make a statement on the implications of the pre-Budget report for investment in public services, with particular reference to emergency services. [150142]

The Financial Secretary to the Treasury (Mr. Stephen Timms): We have been reminded in the past 24 hours of the critical importance to all of us of the work of the emergency services. The whole House will want to express its admiration for their work at Selby.
The Government's plans for spending on public services were set out in last year's spending review, and updated in the pre-Budget report. Police spending is set to rise from £7.7 billion to £9.3 billion in 2003–04; the standard spending assessment for fire services is set to rise from £1.4 billion to £1.6 billion in that year.

Mr. Fitzpatrick: Given the extra resources and the new partnership arrangements being created across the emergency services, can my hon. Friend assure us that full consultation will take place with both trade unions and professional associations, as well as with local authority representatives and the managers of the various organisations and services?

Mr. Timms: What has happened is that national debt is down. In 1997, it was 42 per cent.; it is now 31 per cent. and decreasing. That plus lower interest rates means that £4 billion is available for extra spending. Unemployment is also down, which again makes extra spending available. Those key changes enable the emergency services to plan with confidence for the future, working—as my hon. Friend said—in partnership with local authorities, trade unions and others who are involved. What the services could not cope with is having to contribute to the spending cuts that would be necessary to deliver the policy of Conservative Members.

Mr. Nick St. Aubyn: Is the Minister aware that in Surrey, the sum being given to our police force is being cut in real terms and, according to figures supplied to me by Surrey police, in absolute terms by as

much as £6 per head? How can we have any confidence in the Government's commitment to fight crime when they are prepared to cut the funding of one of the best performing police services in the country?

Mr. Timms: I have said that our plans are to increase spending on the police service. The hon. Gentleman must explain why he supports cuts if he is really looking for more spending. In the next three years, an additional 9,000 recruits across the country will be funded centrally by the crime fighting fund. Police numbers will reach 128,000 by March 2002, and we are expecting further increases after that.

Interest Rate Policy

Mr. Tony Lloyd: If he will make a statement on the impact of interest rate policy on the exchange rate of the pound. [150143]

The Financial Secretary to the Treasury (Mr. Stephen Timms): Interest rates are set by the Monetary Policy Committee to deliver the Government's inflation target. Interest rates are among a wide range of influences on the exchange rate.

Mr. Lloyd: As my right hon. Friend the Chancellor has already reminded the House, the Government have an extraordinarily strong record on employment creation. Nevertheless, does my hon. Friend accept that one current concern is the loss of jobs, particularly in manufacturing industry, and the consequences of those losses in different economic regions of the country? Will he take the time to remind the Monetary Policy Committee that to overshoot on interest rates—or to undershoot on inflation—has serious consequences, and that manufacturing jobs have borne some of those consequences?

Mr. Timms: My hon. Friend is right about the current strength of the economy. It is worth bearing in mind, for example, that the sterling exchange rate was stronger in June 1999, when interest rates were 5 per cent., than in 1998, when interest rates peaked at 7.5 per cent. Manufacturing needs stability in the economy, low interest rates and stable growth, and that is what it now has. The latest figures for manufacturing exports for the three months to December 2000 were 10 per cent. up on a year earlier. That is the fastest growth rate for more than a quarter of a century.
I think that the prospects for manufacturing are very optimistic indeed. Yesterday, I was in my hon. Friend's part of the country talking to manufacturers in the chemical sector—in which increased research and development is critical to success—and heard about various developments such as the new university innovation centre for organic materials at Manchester university. We want there to be more such developments and partnerships between manufacturers and universities to promote further productivity increases and to sow the prospect of even better developments in manufacturing.

Sir Michael Spicer: Is it still the Government's position that we would not need to enter a form of the exchange rate mechanism if we were


to decide to join the single currency, despite all the protestations, information and statements from the Commission to the contrary?

Mr. Timms: The Government have made our position absolutely clear: we have no intention of rejoining the ERM.

Mr. Dale Campbell-Savours: I have told Corus that my view is that the euro's inevitable rise against sterling next year will be of immeasurable help to its United Kingdom operations. Does my hon. Friend agree?

Mr. Timms: I think that we will have to wait and see what happens. As I said earlier to my hon. Friend the Member for Manchester, Central (Mr. Lloyd), recent figures from manufacturing have been extremely encouraging. We are seeing very good performances in many parts of manufacturing. My hon. Friend may have read, for example, about the new British-made models launched this week at the Geneva motor show. There is a new optimism in the car industry. He may also have read about the new South Yorkshire advanced manufacturing centre, which is being supported by Boeing and builds on the very latest metal cutting technology developed in Sheffield. Aerospace, too, has been a big UK success story. I therefore think that the prospects are extremely encouraging.

Gold Sales

Sir Teddy Taylor: If he will make a statement on the sale of gold by the Bank of England in the past 12 months. [150144]

The Chief Secretary to the Treasury (Mr. Andrew Smith): In the current financial year, the Government have sold 125 tonnes of gold at five auctions, raising revenue of $1.1 billion. A further auction is scheduled for March. Along with the auctions in 1999–2000, the sales have been successful and have achieved value for money for the taxpayer. Over the medium term, the sales will achieve the Government's overall aim of a better balanced portfolio of reserve holdings.

Sir Teddy Taylor: As the Chancellor has instructed the Bank of England to put 40 per cent. of all the proceeds into euros; as the Bank has been instructed to take over the issue of vast quantities of euro bonds; and as it has been widely reported that Britain, Japan and America have been intervening directly to prop up the euro, would not it be helpful for the Government to announce the size of the mountain of euros now in the Bank? Does not the right hon. Gentleman understand that, instead of engaging in this very expensive exercise, it would be better for the world economy if the Government simply allowed the euro to find its natural level in world markets? Surely that would be far better than all the back-door methods of trying time and again to prop up the euro.

Mr. Smith: I admire the hon. Gentleman's persistence on this issue, which he raises endlessly, as he has the right to do, in the House and the Treasury Committee. He is becoming something of a gold standard in his own right.
The National Audit Office has looked into all these matters and concluded that the Treasury has
met successfully its objective to sell in a transparent and fair manner while achieving, value for money.
The report said that, in taking income from the foreign currency securities that we have purchased on account, the Government were on 18 December showing a gain of £23 million over what the gold would have been worth.
Such sales have nothing to do with propping up the euro, as the hon. Gentleman suggests. If he reflected for a moment, he would realise that every time there is a gold auction, we are involved in purchasing something like 80 million euro. That contrasts with the $1.5 trillion turnover on the foreign exchange markets on any single day. So, such sales represent a very small pebble in a very large lake.

Third-world Debt

Mr. Jim Cunningham: What recent discussions he has had with his counterparts in other countries on the elimination of third-world debt. [150145]

The Chancellor of the Exchequer (Mr. Gordon Brown): On Monday, I was pleased to hear from the head of the International Monetary Fund, Horst Köhler, and the President of the World Bank, Jim Wolfensohn, that following the path-breaking initiative on which we congratulate them, 22 countries are to receive debt relief and will qualify for 100 per cent. write-off of debt owed to the UK. Among those countries still to qualify, many are in conflict and civil war. Britain has renounced from December 2000 its right to debt payments. Those payments will be held in trust until they can be used for poverty relief.
I met the chairman of the heavily indebted poor countries Finance Ministers group on Monday, when my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State for International Development and I hosted a conference to discuss the 2015 targets for education, health and poverty. On 17 February, I met the G7 Finance Ministers in Palermo, where the Italian presidency made new proposals to extend debt relief during 2001.

Mr. Cunningham: I thank my right hon. Friend for that answer. He is probably aware that many organisations in this country appreciate his efforts in trying to get the IMF and other countries, as well as Britain, down the road of debt relief. What further plans does he have on third-world debt, particularly with regard to Bangladesh, which, as he knows, fairly recently suffered some tremendous natural disasters?

Mr. Brown: I am grateful to my hon. Friend and all those on both sides of the House who have raised the standard for debt relief and worked with the Churches, non-governmental organisations and many UK and international charities which have been pressing for a sensible solution to the problem of unpayable debt. Forty-one countries qualify under the HIPC initiative; 22 have already received debt relief. As I have said, most of the others are in conflict or civil wars. Bangladesh is not one of the countries in the HIPC initiative because its debt is less than that of other countries. It is, of course,


being committed resources through the Department for International Development's aid and development budget, which has risen by 41 per cent. in real terms in the five years to 2004.

Life Insurance

Dr. Vincent Cable: If he will make a statement on the performance of the regulatory authorities in respect of with-profits life insurance [150146]

The Economic Secretary to the Treasury (Miss Melanie Johnson): The Financial Services Authority took responsibility for the prudential supervision of insurance companies on 1 January 1999. With-profits business forms a significant part of that responsibility. Howard Davies announced an FSA review of the with-profits business last Friday.

Dr. Cable: Does the Minister agree that when the Government are encouraging millions of inexperienced investors to put their money in some new products, such as stakeholder pensions, it is vital that the regulator must be seen to act in the consumer interest in cases of mis-selling and the irresponsible assumption of liabilities risk, as occurred at Equitable Life?
Specifically in relation to the inquiry that is under way, will the Minister undertake to look not merely at the misregulation of the FSA, but at the events of the early and mid-1990s when, inexplicably, reporting standards on the industry relaxed and the Government regulator of the day appears to have completely ignored the impact of falling interest rates and falling inflation on the sustainability of guaranteed annuities?

Miss Johnson: As I am sure the hon. Gentleman is aware, the FSA was set up with the important objectives of recognising the needs of consumers and, indeed, to educate consumers. In addition, the FSA has a consumer panel. That is an important part of the FSA's remit, and I entirely agree with the hon. Gentleman that it is an important focus of its work. Indeed, that is why we set up the FSA.
The FSA's report will cover both its role as a prudential regulator and the Personal Investment Authority's role as a conduct of business regulator. The report will look into the background and events leading up to the point at which responsibility for prudential insurance regulation moved to the FSA.

Mr. Jim Cousins: Does my hon. Friend accept that there needs to be more clarity about how bonus payments within with-profits policies, particularly terminal bonus payments, are decided?

Miss Johnson: The FSA's report is yet to emerge. When it does, we will study it carefully to see what issues are identified in relation to the history of Equitable Life and the events surrounding its closure for further business. I hope that my hon. Friend agrees that, without seeing the report, it is premature for us to draw any conclusions at this point.

Miss Anne McIntosh: I declare an interest in that I hold a with-profits insurance policy. Will

the Economic Secretary explain why neither the Treasury nor the regulator took a proper interest in this matter when the original action was taken to block new members taking policies with Equitable Life?

Miss Johnson: All these matters are clearly monitored by the Financial Services Authority. It is producing a report and, when it does, we will have some conclusions to study.

Chester Street Holdings Ltd.

Mr. Michael Clapham: If he will make a statement on Chester Street Holdings Ltd., previously known as Iron Trades Holding Ltd. [150147]

The Economic Secretary to the Treasury (Miss Melanie Johnson): The Government understand the concern of those suffering from asbestos-related disease as a consequence of employment in firms whose employers' liability insurance has been provided by Chester Street Holdings Ltd.

Mr. Clapham: I thank my hon. Friend for that answer. I also thank her for meeting my hon. Friend the Member for Clydebank and Milngavie (Mr. Worthington) and me yesterday to discuss the issue. As she is aware, it appears that Iron Trades dumped the asbestos liabilities into Chester Street Holdings in 1990. The company continued trading until the late 1990s, when it was sold to an Australian insurance company.
The insurance protection board will provide some protection for some of the cases, but the pre-1972 cases—that is, cases of men exposed before 1972—may not be covered by the protection system. Will my hon. Friend therefore set up an inquiry into Iron Trades? Will she also consider how she might urge the insurance industry to work with the Government with the aim of ensuring that each claimant gets compensation in full?

Miss Johnson: As an insurance company, Chester Street—and Iron Trades before it—was authorised to do business in the UK, and has been supervised by insurance regulators to ensure that it meets the requirements of the Insurance Companies Act 1982. Since 1 January 1999, the FSA has been responsible for prudential supervision of insurance companies.
The Policy Holders Protection Act 1975 offers protection for compulsory employers' liability insurance policies, which are required under the Employers Liability (Compulsory Insurance) Act 1969. It is the employer who holds the policy with Chester Street, not the employee. The employer remains liable for claims made against it by employees or former employees. It is for the employer to establish whether any further protection is required under the 1975 Act, to the extent that Chester Street is unable to meet the terms of the insurance contract in full.
I am aware of the problem mentioned by my hon. Friend of the pre-1972 claims. The Treasury is considering that issue.

Business of the House

Mrs. Angela Browning: Would the Leader of the House give us the business for the coming week?

The President of the Council and Leader of the House of Commons (Mrs. Margaret Beckett): The business for next week will be as follows:
MONDAY 5 MARCH—Debate on Welsh Affairs on a motion for the Adjournment of the House. 
TUESDAY 6 MARCH—Second Reading of the International Development Bill. 
WEDNESDAY 7 MARCH—My right hon. Friend the Chancellor of the Exchequer will open his Budget statement. 
THURSDAY 8 MARCH—Continuation of the Budget debate. 
FRIDAY 9 MARCH—Private Members' Bills. 
The provisional business for the following week will be: 
MONDAY 12 MARCH—Continuation of the Budget Debate.
TUESDAY 13 MARCH—Conclusion of the Budget Debate. 
WEDNESDAY 14 MARCH—Remaining stages of the Criminal Justice and Police Bill. 
THURSDAY 15 MARCH—Estimates Day [2nd Allotted Day]. 
The Liaison Committee will recommend subjects for debate. 
At 7 o'clock the House will be asked to agree the Spring Supplementary Estimates, Votes on Account and Defence Votes A. 
FRIDAY 16 MARCH—Private Members' Bills. 
The House will wish to be reminded that on Wednesday 7 March, there will be a debate relating to motor vehicle distribution and servicing agreements in the European Community in European Standing Committee C.
On Wednesday 7 March, there will be a debate relating to health requirements for animal by-products in European Standing Committee A.
The House will also wish to know that on Wednesday 14 March, there will be a debate relating to community immigration policy in European Standing Committee C.
Details of the relevant documents will be given in the Official Report.
[Wednesday 7 March 2001: European Standing Committee A—Relevant European Union document: (a) 12648/00 and (b) 12646/00, Health requirements for animal by-products. Relevant European Scrutiny Committee reports: HC 28-iii and HC 28-vii(2000–01).
European Standing Committee C—Relevant European Union document: 13889/00, Competition in motor vehicle distribution and servicing. Relevant European Scrutiny Committee report HC 28-iii(2000–01).
Wednesday 14 March 2001:
European Standing Committee C—Relevant European Union document: 11529/00, Community immigration policy. Relevant European Scrutiny Committee report: HC 28-iii(2000–01).]

Mrs. Browning: I am grateful to the Leader of the House. Yesterday's debate in Opposition time on the

continuing foot and mouth crisis was welcomed by Members on both sides. Despite the fact that we have a busy schedule next week, including the Budget statement, I hope that the right hon. Lady can confirm that the Minister of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food will be available to come to the House as necessary to share new information and advice with hon. Members, not least because the disease has now spread throughout the United Kingdom. Members will have questions in respect of telephone calls and queries from constituents, and it would be helpful to be updated by the Minister and to have an opportunity to ask questions. I hope that time will be found for that.
On foot and mouth, can the right hon. Lady tell us what contingency arrangements are in place in case the crisis continues? In particular, I have in mind the need to collect national census forms across the country on 29 April and any change that may have to be made to county council elections scheduled for 3 May.
Can the Leader of the House tell us whether Downing street has yet received the report of the Hammond inquiry? She will know that there are press reports that it has. If the conclusions of the report are imminent, will she outline how the Government intend to convey that information to the House and what opportunities the House will have to question the Government on it?
May I bring the Leader of the House back to something that I raised at the last business questions: namely, the continuing problems with programming motions, especially in Committee? I have mentioned the Criminal Justice and Police Bill. The House was told that the Government intended to allow 16 sittings on the Bill but, in Committee, the Home Office Minister concerned offered only 14. I gather that in a meeting of the Programming Sub-Committee, that was increased to 15 sittings. However, on the last day of its deliberations, the Committee will have to deal with no fewer than 50 clauses as well as new schedules, all of which will have to be compressed into a Thursday, when there are fewer hours for consideration.
I know that the right hon. Lady shares the concern that the programming procedures should be sorted out. I ask her to focus on our experiences with Home Office Bills in particular and to consider the case of the Criminal Justice and Police Bill. It is a matter of grave concern to my colleagues that they will have to deal with that very important Bill in such a short space of time.
On the same subject, the Special Educational Needs and Disability Bill is due to come to the Commons soon from another place. Conservative Members in another place tabled many amendments to the Bill as a result of consultation with many large charitable organisations. It was a matter of great concern to them that they faced open criticism from Labour Members of another place for doing so. I flag that up now because I hope that the Leader of the House will ensure that the education team is responsive to the need for clauses and amendments to be properly scrutinised and discussed when the Bill comes to the Commons. It is clearly a matter of interest not just to us but to many charitable bodies with an interest in special educational needs.

Mrs. Beckett: I can certainly assure the hon. Lady that my right hon. Friend the Minister for Agriculture, Fisheries and Food intends to try to keep the House




informed about foot and mouth. I understand that he is seeking to put in place arrangements to keep hon. Members informed and to extend the availability of information in localities so that there can be as much accurate information as possible available in the public domain. I know that my right hon. Friend is, among other things, anxious to learn the lessons of the Phillips report and the handling of the BSE crisis, and feels that open and transparent provision of information is desirable in such circumstances. I hope that the House shares that view.
The hon. Lady asked me whether I could say any more about contingency plans for issues such as the census and the local elections; these were well-concealed inquiries about the date of the general election, I thought. Obviously, my right hon. Friend the Minister has issues such as the handling of census forms under active consideration. I cannot give the hon. Lady any more information about that at the present time.
The hon. Lady and the House will be aware that the time period is such that we are probably talking about outbreaks of the disease that were incubated before movement was stopped. How great the difficulties are and how speedily they can be resolved will depend on events in the next few days. I cannot tell her any more about that at the moment, but I know that my right hon. Friend the Minister will wish to do so.
I would have assured the hon. Lady that there will be an opportunity to question my right hon. Friend the Minister in the near future but for the fact that two Departments will be answering oral questions next Thursday, so I shall handle that matter with some caution. However, there will come a point at which the hon. Lady and the House will be able to question my right hon. Friend.
I am not aware that the report of the Hammond inquiry has been received, although, of course, I am aware of the great interest in the matter. My right hon. Friend the Prime Minister has made it plain that he has every intention of publishing the report as speedily as possible. The issue is under consideration, but I understand that it is not yet resolved.
The hon. Lady again raises the issue of programming motions. I am mindful of the concerns that she expresses. We are extremely anxious, as she noted, to reach agreement on those matters. The Special Educational Needs and Disability Bill receives its Third Reading in the Lords today. Although I am aware that the Bill is progressing, I am not aware of the issues raised by the hon. Lady or of problems with regard to the amendments. I certainly assure her that the education team will take seriously any issues or concerns that arise during the Bill's passage through this House.

Helen Jones: In view of the article in The Daily Telegraph today, will my right hon. Friend arrange an early debate on the record of the former chief inspector of schools? I refer especially to the evidence, documented in his own reports, of the success of many of the Government's policies, including the rising GCSE standards, the vastly improved literacy and numeracy standards in primary schools and the success in cutting infant class sizes. Does my right hon. Friend agree that

we should have the opportunity to debate those issues before the former chief inspector becomes a Conservative peer?

Mrs. Beckett: My hon. Friend asks me to arrange a debate on those issues. However, given that we are to have Education questions and that the Special Educational Needs and Disability Bill is to come before the House, I suspect that there will be opportunities for Members to air such issues.
I am, of course, aware of the former chief inspector's comments. I also heard my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State for Education and Employment on the radio this morning handling the issue with extreme skill. He showed the concern for educational standards that I hope everyone in the House shares. I share my right hon. Friend's view that it is to be regretted that the former chief inspector has, apparently, changed his mind on several things that he previously supported; that is, of course, entirely a matter for him.

Mr. Paul Tyler: May I return to the scourge of foot and mouth? Will the Leader of the House arrange for the Home Secretary to come to the House as soon as possible so that we can hear more about the contingency plans that may have to be used if this terrible disease continues to spread across the country? I draw her attention to the statement made yesterday by her colleague, the Minister of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food, that there seemed to be a good case for the postponement of the census. Will the right hon. Lady confirm whether that requires legislation? If so, we need to know in good time.
Will the right hon. Lady go further and ask the Home Secretary to come to the House and explain what the arrangements would be for polling day on 3 May—whatever elections take place on that day? As I understand it, new regulations provide for a complete election by post, if necessary. There has been a complete relaxation of the postal vote arrangements. It would be possible to use postal votes in rural areas, such as Cornwall, where there would be a total distortion of the result—of the county council elections or any other election—if any foot and mouth restrictions remained in the area on polling day. Will the right hon. Lady ask the Home Secretary to explain to the House exactly what contingency plans are in place?

Mrs. Beckett: The hon. Gentleman raises two issues. I think the census may be a matter for the Treasury rather than for the Home Office. People are obviously considering contingency plans, although there may be some reluctance to get into detailed discussions until we know whether there is a need for such steps. I shall certainly draw the hon. Gentleman's remarks to the attention of my relevant right hon. Friends.
On voting, it is certainly my understanding—although I have not checked the matter with the Home Office—that postal voting, which is much more widely available, might assist in resolving any difficulties. I cannot undertake to ask the Home Secretary to make a special statement on that issue in the near future, not least because Home Office questions will take place on Monday 12 March, offering an opportunity to raise it at a pertinent point.

Mr. David Winnick: Is my right hon. Friend aware that if any criticism is to be levelled at the


Government about Woodhead, it would be that he was not sacked on day one? It is difficult to understand why someone who was so hostile to the Government's plans for education was kept on for so long.

Mrs. Beckett: My hon. Friend has had reservations about those issues for some time and is, of course, free to express them. I simply say that I understand that one of the former chief inspector's criticisms is that he believes that there is a lack of follow-through on policies. I understand also that Mr. de Gruchy, who is not always the Government's greatest fan, has said that however much he may disagree with many of the Government's policies, he does not believe that it can be justifiably alleged that they are not followed through.

Mr. Peter Brooke: In the context of the questions from my hon. Friend the Member for Tiverton and Honiton (Mrs. Browning) on the Government's handling of foot and mouth and the considerable concern about foot and mouth across the island of Ireland, will it fall to the Secretary of State for Northern Ireland or to the Minister of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food to keep us informed of events in Northern Ireland and their effect on the border counties?

Mrs. Beckett: To be honest, both are involved, as the right hon. Gentleman will clearly appreciate. However, without becoming too involved in the detail of a specialist subject, I understand that, as far as we are aware, the outbreak in Ireland has some relationship to the original case in the north of England. In that sense, such matters still fall within the remit of my right hon. Friend the Minister of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food. Clearly the Secretary of State for Northern Ireland is involved and will certainly play his part in keeping the House informed.
Perhaps I may trespass on your good graces for a moment, Mr. Speaker, to confirm to the House that questions to the Minister of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food will take place on Thursday 8 March and questions to my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State for Education and Employment will take place on 15 March. Those are the occasions on which Members will have an opportunity to raise the issues to which I have referred.

Mr. David Chaytor: Will my right hon. Friend join me in paying tribute to the work of the staff and pupils of the excellent comprehensive schools in my constituency? Each of those schools has its own diversity of ethos, and each has high standards and is producing improving results, year on year. Those improvements are largely due to the work of the staff and pupils and have little to do with the policies of the former chief inspector, but they are also due to the support provided by the excellent local education authority in Bury. In view of the publication last week of the Green Paper on the future of secondary schools and the huge interest that those wide-ranging proposals have produced, does my right hon. Friend agree that there is now a strong case for a debate in Government time about the future shape and structure of comprehensive education in this country?

Mrs. Beckett: My hon. Friend raises an interesting issue and I join him in paying tribute to the excellence

of the schools in his constituency. On the day the recent announcements were being made, I happened to be visiting an extremely good comprehensive school—which, as he says, has a richness of diversity—in the Halifax area. There is no doubt that much excellent work is being done, but it is important that we raise the standards of all schools, as he suggests. [Laughter.] Opposition Members are enjoying themselves, but those are the schools that our children attend, even if theirs do not; they are important to Labour Members.
My hon. Friend is right to pay tribute to the work of many good LEAs, which are working in partnership with schools. He refers also to the Green Paper. I am mindful of the remarks in the Financial Times this week that much of the detailed policy in the Green Paper—particularly the emphasis on secondary schools—deserves praise. That view is widely shared.

Mr. Nicholas Winterton: May I return to the issue of the foot and mouth crisis? Following the Downing street emergency meeting with farmers' representatives on Tuesday and the debate that took place in the House yesterday, I understand that the Minister of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food will announce that the Government will open selected abattoirs to take livestock from farms that are free from foot and mouth.
J. J. J. Heathcote, a small but modern abattoir in my constituency, has been in touch this morning to advise me that it understands that the Government will open only large abattoirs. That means that animals may have to travel many, many miles, which some believe has contributed to the crisis that we face today. If that is the case, it could have a devastating impact on small farms and small abattoirs. Will the Leader of the House assure me that the Minister will open not just large abattoirs, but will consider opening small, modern abattoirs? We believe that that would help farming communities.

Mrs. Beckett: I am aware that my right hon. Friend is giving careful and detailed consideration to the issue of how the travel of animals to slaughter can be handled so that they do not come into contact with other animals. Consideration is being given to what that will mean in terms of travel distances, times and so on.
I am not aware of the specific issue that the hon. Gentleman has just raised about the size of the abattoirs that the Ministry of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food has in mind. However, I take his point, as will my right hon. Friend. I certainly undertake to draw the hon. Gentleman's remarks to my right hon. Friend's attention.

Mr. Harry Barnes: Last year on 19 July, an hour and a half debate was held in Westminster Hall following the report of the Department of the Environment, Transport and the Regions' working party on park homes. Should we not now have a full debate on the issue in the House, as it is becoming an increasingly serious matter? More and more people who are not interested in the sites are becoming site owners; they merely rip off the residents. The report of the park homes working party was an attempt to flag up future legislation to introduce controls over these sites. It is important that we make effective progress on the matter.

Mrs. Beckett: I understand my hon. Friend's concern. I am aware of a number of examples of people expressing


anxiety about the running of such sites. I fear that I cannot find time for a special debate on the matter on the Floor of the House in the near future, but I undertake to draw his remarks to the attention of my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State for the Environment, Transport and the Regions.

Mr. Peter Lilley: Mr. Speaker, you will have noticed that, at Treasury questions, Labour Members appeared to be under orders not to ask supplementaries about the euro and the exchange rate that relates to it. Labour Whips may wish to give up discussion of the subject for Lent. However, will the Leader of the House arrange a debate so that we can discuss the truncated questions that were asked at Treasury questions today and consider the condition in the treaty that there should be a period of stability for at least two years before we would be allowed to enter the euro? We could also consider whether the Chancellor of the Exchequer, were he still to be in post after an election, proposes to have a referendum before that condition is met or intends to wait two years before he holds any referendum.

Mrs. Beckett: There is no ordinance—self-denying or otherwise—on the questions that Labour Members ask. I imagine that they wish to raise other matters and, unlike Conservative Members, do not want to keep going obsessively over the same ground. My hon. Friends have heard the answers and know that they have not changed. Consequently, I can only guess that they feel disinclined to dwell on an issue that has already been resolved. I simply say to the right hon. Gentleman that it is rather sad that Conservative Members are so obsessed with this issue. They insist on asking the same questions over and over again, even though they keep getting the same answers.

Mr. Jeremy Corbyn: My right hon. Friend will be aware that, yesterday, the Home Office published a draft statutory instrument on the prevention and suppression of terrorism, listing 21 organisations that it sought to have banned in this country. When is that measure likely to be debated in the House? My right hon. Friend will be aware also that many people have misgivings about the inclusion of certain organisations on the list, which might restrict peace negotiations. Under the current procedure, the measure can be debated for one and a half hours on an unamendable motion. Does my right hon. Friend accept that this is an extremely serious issue, that we should have longer than one and a half hours to debate it and that right hon. and hon. Members should be able to table amendments so that we can discuss the individual organisations that my right hon. Friend the Home Secretary is proposing to ban? Many of us believe that there are implications not only for civil liberties, but for the peace process in a number of places, including Sri Lanka.

Mrs. Beckett: I can understand my hon. Friend's concern. As he rightly says, these are serious issues and he knows that my right hon. Friend the Home Secretary takes them extremely seriously. I am afraid that I cannot undertake to provide for a procedure that would allow amendments to be tabled to a statutory instrument. There is a precedent; such proposals have often been considered


in the House, but have been rejected by every Government. While I understand my hon. Friend's wish to have a lengthy debate on the matter, he will understand that I have to balance that wish against a number of other pressures on time. However, he will know that Home Office questions will take place on Monday 12 March, when an opportunity may arise to consider some of these issues. I undertake to draw his remarks to the attention of my right hon. Friend who, as always, will do everything that he can to meet the concerns of hon. Members.

Mr. Paul Keetch: May I return to the foot and mouth outbreak? It is not acceptable that we should have to wait another week until Agriculture questions next Thursday to raise the matter, as it is a fast-moving disease. This morning, I was contacted by Mr. Kevin Feakins of Garron Livestock Ltd. in my constituency. The company was closed down two days ago due to foot and mouth disease. He is very concerned about some 3,400 sheep that he exported to France which are currently being slaughtered by the French authorities. The French authorities are telling the British Embassy in Paris that Mr. Feakins will receive only FF300 per sheep, which is approximately one third of their value. Whatever we may think about live exports, they are still legal. Given that Mr. Feakins will receive the full market value in compensation for sheep that are slaughtered in the United Kingdom, but not for those exported to France, will the Leader of the House make sure that when the Minister for Agriculture, Fisheries and Food returns to the House, he will have details about those sheep, as well as those being slaughtered in the United Kingdom?

Mrs. Beckett: I did not say that we would have to wait a week to discuss the matter. I said that Agriculture questions would take place next Thursday, providing a natural opportunity for right hon. and hon. Members to raise the issue. I also said that my right hon. Friend the Minister of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food will try to keep hon. Members informed by whatever means he can. The hon. Gentleman may have overlooked the fact that I told the hon. Member for Tiverton and Honiton (Mrs. Browning) that my right hon. Friend is even now working on arrangements whereby hon. Members can be kept informed and speedily updated on any developments. I know that he will seek to do that. With regard to the specific issue that the hon. Gentleman raised, I understand his concern. I cannot undertake that my right hon. Friend will make a statement specifically about that matter, but I shall certainly draw it to his attention. I am confident that he will be in contact with the hon. Gentleman.

Mr. Andrew Mackinlay: I draw the attention of the Leader of the House to future business on the Order Paper. The Home Secretary has tabled the draft European Parliamentary Elections (Franchise of Relevant Citizens of the Union) Regulations 2001. Before those regulations are brought to the House, will they be reviewed, as they are flawed? They omit to fulfil the Government's commitment to enfranchise the people of Gibraltar in the next European elections, which they are obliged to do following a court action that they could have avoided had they taken the advice of myself and others. I hope that the measure will be looked at again before it comes to the House because some of us will not acquiesce in this grave omission by our silence.
If my right hon. Friend thinks it somewhat irksome that I keep raising these issues as a matter of attrition with the Home Secretary, let me say that I take heart because the Home Secretary is a listening Minister. Two or three years ago, I asked him to introduce a measure to allow Church of England and Catholic priests to stand for election in the House of Commons; he refused. It pays dividends to keep working at it because, this afternoon, I hope that we will give a Third Reading to the very important measure for which I campaigned.

Mrs. Beckett: I would never dream of regarding my hon. Friend as irksome. He is a conscientious and hard-working Member who has had a good deal of success in raising issues in the House, as he points out. I shall draw the matter to the attention of my right hon. Friend the Home Secretary, but I cannot undertake to find time for a separate special debate. The order will have to go through a scrutiny process in the House and outside, and I shall ensure that his concerns are aired.

Mr. Patrick McLoughlin: Will the Leader of the House find time for a debate next week on departmental replies to the correspondence of Members of Parliament? If she cannot do that, will she use her influence with other Departments to ensure that we receive speedier responses? I wrote to the Department of Health on 29 September 2000 and received an answer on 12 February which said:
You and your constituents will be pleased to learn that the British Medical Association currently runs a mentoring scheme for overseas doctors. They can be contacted at … BMA House.
That was an interesting answer, but I do not think that I should have waited five months for it.

Mrs. Beckett: I share the hon. Gentleman's view, as will my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State for Health, to whose attention I shall draw that example.

Mr. Keith Darvill: Now that my right hon. Friend has had an opportunity to read the Procedure Committee's report on the election of the Speaker, what progress has she made in finding time to debate its recommendations at an early date?

Mrs. Beckett: I am mindful of the Committee's report and its excellent work. We have not been able to find time to hold that debate in the next couple of weeks, but I am aware that there is pressure on both sides of the House for the matter to be discussed.

Rev. Martin Smyth: On foot and mouth, can the Leader of the House guarantee that a Minister will give guidance on how animals that were sold for slaughter in Carlisle ended up on an open-range farm in south Armagh? Something has to be done to tighten procedures, especially when that practice could have a devastating impact on the hard-hit industry in Northern Ireland and could spread the disease to the Republic, which would be even worse hit.

Mrs. Beckett: I believe that that is under active consideration.

Mrs. Ann Cryer: Will it be possible to debate the impact of Government policies on single

parents, if only to dispel the myths peddled by the tabloids and to demonstrate that the vast majority of single parents are victims of desertion, bereavement or divorce? Perhaps we could also discuss cases such as that of my constituent who came into my office the other day to tell me that her life had been transformed by the working families tax credit. She was able to afford child care, which meant that she could get off benefits, into work and do something interesting.

Mrs. Beckett: I know from experience and from comments that people have made to me how much many single parents welcome the beneficial changes that the Government have introduced, especially because they are directed at children, which is a prime concern for single parents in particular. What my hon. Friend says is true: most single parents are involuntarily in that role and are doing their best to raise their families without them being harmed further by the circumstances that they face. I fear, however, that I cannot find time to hold a special debate on the matter on the Floor of the House in the near future, but she might want to pursue the issue in Westminster Hall.

Several hon. Members: rose—

Mr. Speaker: Order. During business questions, hon. Members should ask for either a statement or a debate. Furthermore, if they are brief, I can call all those who want to put a question.

Mr. Stephen Day: Thank you, Mr. Speaker—I shall try to get this right.
The Leader of the House will be aware that, although the Opposition Whips Office is extremely effective, it cannot possibly be so effective as to have planted two or three moles on the Labour Benches this afternoon to demand that the Secretary of State for Education and Employment come to the House to explain why a former head of the schools inspectorate launched such a devastating attack on the failure of the Government's education policies. I hope that she will feel able to listen to the demands of her Back Benchers. If she agrees to them, I assure her that the Opposition will be extremely pleased.

Mrs. Beckett: I do not think that I can add much to what has already been said, but no doubt the matter will be returned to many times in the House.

Dr. Desmond Turner: I draw my right hon. Friend's attention to early-day motion 365:
[That this House, hearing in mind the calls in the NHS plan, echoed by the British Medical Association, for more medical professionals, welcomes the joint bid by the universities of York and Hull to establish a medical school; notes the support from NHS trusts in York, Hull, North Yorkshire, the East Riding and South Humber; further notes that this is the largest population centre in England without a medical school; and expresses hope that, if successful, this bid will improve healthcare provision and training in a region with significant areas of deprivation and help alleviate the significant problems the region has in recruiting and retaining clinical staff]
It refers to the need to expand provision for medical education and new medical schools if we are to satisfy demand. A bid focusing on my constituency has been


made by the universities of Brighton and Sussex. Will my right hon. Friend find time for a debate on that important issue, given that the provision of mare doctors is one of the keys to bringing our health service up to scratch?

Mrs. Beckett: I share my hon. Friend's view on the importance of providing more doctors. He will know that the Government have already expanded the number of training places and that we are keen to ensure that the work force is expanded in that way. I am aware of the application to which he refers; it will be given sympathetic consideration, as are all such applications.

Mr. Eric Forth: Can the Leader of the House provide for an urgent debate, immediately after the Budget statement, on the disproportionate state benefits and expenditure in Scotland compared with those in England? Does she not agree that it is important that the electorate are informed, through a lengthy and detailed debate in the House, as to why Scotland is such a privileged an I cosseted part of the United Kingdom? She will know that the Scots sometimes receive as much as 25 per cent. more expenditure per head than the English on education, health and other matters. The taxpayers of England will want to know why that is so and where the Government Stand on that issue well ahead of a general election.

Mrs. Beckett: The Government stand where previous Governments have always stood on implementing the agreement on and breakdown of the provision of public moneys. As I recall, that was not changed by the Conservatives when they had a 20-year opportunity to do so. In that context, I cannot undertake to provide an urgent debate on a matter that is not an emergency and has no urgency about it.

Mr. Christopher Leslie: Will my right hon. Friend find time for a debate on local transport investment? This week, the final report of the Aire Valley public transport commission in my constituency will be launched. It will help us to take advantage of new investment in the Bingley relief road and improvements to Leeds city station, as well as bringing together for the first time all the bus and train companies and transport user groups.

Mrs. Beckett: I understand my ion. Friend's strong interest in the issue, on which he has long campaigned—in fact, I think that he chaired the Aire Valley public transport commission, which provide s a good example of a range of local interests coming together to address and satisfy local need. I also understand my hon. Friend's desire for the matter to be aired. Perhaps he will find an opportunity to do that in Westminster Hall; I fear that I cannot find time for it on the Floor of the House.

Mr. John Bercow: Will the Leader of the House reconsider her uncharacteristic truculence of 8 February and agree now to a debate on the Government's plan to scrap the pound after a rigged referendum? Given that millions of Labour voters want to keep the pound and that the right hon. Lady herself has a distinguished track record of euroscepticism, why does she not now do the noble thing t and resign from the Cabinet to speak up for those people, thereby ensuring

that she becomes a real heroine, perhaps the length and breadth of the land and certainly from her birthplace of Ashton-under-Lyne to her constituency of Derby, South?

Mrs. Beckett: That is all very flattering. I appreciate the hon. Gentleman's warm wish to welcome me back to the Back Benches.
First, it is pushing the boat out a bit to talk about a rigged referendum for which no preparations have yet even been made or announced. The hon. Gentleman is convinced already that it will be rigged.
Secondly, I fear that I must disappoint the hon. Gentleman. Although he is entirely right that I campaigned in 1975 and for some years thereafter on the issue of membership of the European Union—I not infrequently remind those who did not share that point of view at the time that I did so—I have long since come to the conclusion that the United Kingdom has been involved in the EU for so long, and our legal and financial structures are so enmeshed, that it is now essential that we make the best of our membership. If that means that at some point we must consider entry into economic and monetary union, the House and the country will have to consider it.

Mr. Nigel Evans: Will the Leader arrange for a Minister at the Department of the Environment, Transport and the Regions to make a statement, following much concern about the erection of telecommunication masts and related environmental and health problems? In my constituency, there are three applications involving Ribchester, Clayton le Dale and an area just outside Longridge. It is a rural constituency and we do not want to turn the Ribble valley, or the countryside of the rest of England and Wales, into a giant Meccano set. Is it possible for a Minister to advise us of the changes that may be made to ensure that more power is given to local authorities to determine where masts are erected?

Mrs. Beckett: I know that the issue arouses concern on both sides of the House. Indeed, my hon. Friend the Member for Stourbridge (Ms Shipley) introduced a ten-minute Bill on the subject yesterday. Incidentally, it was opposed by the hon. Member for Lichfield (Mr. Fabricant), which shows that there are different views on both sides of the House.
The issue is frequently aired, and I shall draw the remarks of the hon. Member for Ribble Valley (Mr. Evans) to the attention of my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State. In the circumstances, I cannot find time for a special debate on the matter on the Floor of the House. There are many opportunities to raise the issue, and it is raised and aired continually. I shall ensure that the hon. Gentleman's concerns are passed on.

Dr. Vincent Cable: After the premature leak to the media yesterday of the results of the Heathrow terminal 5 inquiry, will the Deputy Prime Minister make a statement on the report, which is of enormous interest to London and south-east Members. I ask the right hon. Gentleman to give us a courteous and proper presentation of the report's conclusions. When he does so, will he tell us what action he is taking to trace the leaker of highly market-sensitive information?

Mrs. Beckett: My understanding is that there has not been a leak and that no decision on the inspector's report


has yet been taken. I do not know from where the report originated. I undertake to let my right hon. Friend the Deputy Prime Minister know of the concern in the House that, when a decision is made, it should be properly conveyed to the House.

Mr. Christopher Chope: Will the Leader of the House make a statement next week on the delay in Departments responding to written parliamentary questions? One of my written questions was answered yesterday and appears today in Hansard at column 649W. I tabled the question to the Department for Culture, Media and Sport four weeks ago. It was a simple question. I asked when the Hinduja foundation paid the sponsorship money for the dome—hardly the most exacting question. I now have the answer, which is that a 10 per cent. deposit was paid in February 1999, just before the passport was issued, and that the rest was paid afterwards. I am still waiting for answers to questions that were tabled at the same time about the involvement of Lord Levy in the episode. I cannot understand why I am not getting more timely responses.

Mrs. Beckett: The issue that the hon. Gentleman raises has been aired in the House and no doubt will be aired again, but I cannot undertake to find time for a special debate on it.

Mr. Geoffrey Clifton-Brown: May I take the Leader back to the foot and mouth crisis? Farmers in my constituency are subject to movement restriction orders because of outbreaks just across two county boundaries. They are desperately worried about the situation. Will the right hon. Lady make earnest representations to her right hon. Friend the Minister of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food to make a statement to the House early next week on the fast-moving situation? Farmers are urging me to make representations about the welfare implications of their not being able to move animals to slaughter, and the compensation arrangements.
If the Leader of the House is unable to do that, may I make a practical suggestion to her, which I ask her urgently to consider? My suggestion is that after the Minister takes Agriculture questions next Thursday, he should answer a separate question on foot and mouth, so that we will have time to question him specifically on the issue. Thursday is a light day of business in the House. It is one of four days' debate on the Budget, and there is no reason why a little time should not be found for such a serious situation.

Mrs. Beckett: I will convey to my right hon. Friend the Minister for Agriculture, Fisheries and Food the general wish that has been expressed today for the House to be kept informed. The hon. Gentleman knows that my right hon. Friend is extremely conscientious about doing that. I know that my right hon. Friend hopes that the arrangements that he intends to put in place for information will mean that hon. Members do not need to question him at the Dispatch Box about developments, and that he will keep them informed by other means, but obviously that remains to be seen. The hon. Gentleman makes a very interesting suggestion about how to handle the issue at Agriculture questions, which no doubt

Mr. Speaker will also have heard. Again, I will draw that to the attention of my right hon. Friend, to see whether he considers it the right way to deal with the matter.

Mr. Desmond Swayne: May I draw the right hon. Lady's attention to this week's edition of Computer Weekly, which is published today? It alleges that two leaked internal Ministry of Defence documents indicate that critical changes were made to the Chinook mark 2's FADEC software. As a consequence of that, I was given a misleading answer to a question that I tabled in the summer of 1999. The Leader of the House will be aware that the matter is of interest to hon. Members in all parts of the House, and that the Prime Minister has answered a number of questions on it. The other place is due to debate the issue next Monday. Given the allegations made in Computer Weekly, does the right hon. Lady agree that the House deserves a statement or, at the very least, a fulsome written answer?

Mrs. Beckett: I fear that Computer Weekly, no doubt incorrectly, is not my daily reading, or even weekly reading. Consequently, I am not aware of the issue to which the hon. Gentleman refers. I undertake to draw it to the attention of the relevant Ministers, who are no doubt already being briefed on the matter. I fear that I cannot undertake to find time for a special debate on it, but if there is concern that the wrong information has been given, that will doubt less be addressed in some way.

Dr. Julian Lewis: May we have a statement, please, from the Prime Minister explaining the contradiction between what he told our most important ally, President Bush, about the so-called European Union rapid reaction force being "firmly embedded" in NATO, and the provisions of the annexes to the treaty of Nice, which make it abundantly clear that the command and control of any such force will be entirely independent of NATO or any other organisation, other than the EU?

Mrs. Beckett: The issue has been aired repeatedly in the House. My right hon. Friend the Prime Minister is certainly aware of the concern that has been expressed. I understand that the discussions that took place in the United States were I full and constructive, and that there is complete agreement between our Government and the Government of the US that there will be real value in the different role that the European rapid reaction force will play, and about the huge importance of NATO.

Mr. Graham Brady: May I endorse the calls for a debate on education policy that were made by the hon. Members for Walsall, North (Mr. Winnick), for Warrington, North (Helen Jones) and for Bury, North (Mr. Chaytor)? Clearly, they want to sort out the confusion among Labour Members, who now know that they are part of a Government in which the Secretary of State for Education and Employment finds it difficult to make tough decisions and the Prime Minister cannot see things through. Of course, the Government are also prepared simultaneously to attack comprehensive and grammar schools. They are terminally confused and they do not know whether they are in favour of selection or against it, so it is time that we had a statement or debate to clear the matter up.

Mrs. Beckett: There have been extensive statements and debates on education matters, and more will no doubt



occur in future. The only confusion of which I am aware exists on the Opposition Benches, and perhaps in the mind of the former chief inspector of schools.

Mr. Owen Paterson: Is the right hon. Lady aware of the huge threat that is posed to rural magistrates courts by the requirements of the Human Rights Act 1998? To conform with the Act, courts must be reorganised so as to ensure that the public do not see prisoners in handcuffs, as such restraints infringe their dignity. The courts of Market Drayton, Whitchurch and Oswestry face significant costs. For example, Oswestry magistrates court requires £197,450 for compliance. May we have an urgent statement from the, Lord Chancellor's Department, explaining its policy? The requirements are imposed by central Government, but in theory the local expenditure is decided by magistrate.

Mrs. Beckett: I cannot undertake to find time for a special debate on the matter, although I understand the hon. Gentleman's concern. I know that issues regarding the handling of rural magistrates courts and their problems are frequently raised with the Parliamentary Secretary, Lord Chancellor's Department, my hon. Friend the Member for Liverpool, Wavertree (Jane Kennedy). Indeed, I believe that Question Time for that Department will be held next week, so he may find an opportunity to raise the issue then.

Miss Anne McIntosh: Does the right hon. Lady agree that the timing of the foot and mouth outbreak is especially unfortunate for hard-pressed farmers, as at least 50 per cent. of last year's lamb exports were destined for France and other European Union markets, which also form 90 per cent. of the culled sow markets? I understand that those two categories would not qualify for the funds that the Minister of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food explained yesterday. Will she therefore invite the Chancellor of the Exchequer to make a statement next week to announce the application of contingency funds to those categories?

Mrs. Beckett: I am aware of the particular misfortune in respect of the timing of what is in any case a very worrying outbreak, and of the great anxiety that is felt in the farming community. I cannot undertake to invite my right hon. Friend the Chancellor to make a special contribution on that issue next week, not least because he will be making his Budget statement. What that will contain is another matter, about which I know no more than she does.

BILL PRESENTED

FIXED-TERM PARLIAMENTS

Tony Wright, supported by Mr. Giles Radice, Mr. Robin Corbett, Mr. Frank Field, Helen Jackson, Mr. Austin Mitchell, Mrs. Anne Campbell, Ms Harriet Harman and Mr. Mark Oaten, presented a Bill to provide for fixed-term Parliaments: And the same was read the First time; and ordered to be read a Second time on Friday 6 April, and to be printed [Bill 54].

Point of Order

Mr. John Bercow: On a point of order, Mr. Speaker. You will be aware that the terms of the Order of the House made on 6 February this year ensure that if the House of Commons (Removal of Clergy Disqualification) Bill, which we are about to consider, is amended during its Committee stage, consideration on Report must begin no later than 5 o'clock this afternoon. On behalf of my hon. Friends, I am therefore interested to establish what guidance you can offer as to the admissibility or otherwise of manuscript amendments, especially in view of the regrettable experience of 17 July last year, when the House considered the Football Disorder Bill in similar circumstances. After the Committee stage, we proceeded to Report and there was no proper opportunity for hon. Members to table amendments. Obviously, we would want to avoid a repetition of those events, which were acknowledged to be a farce by not only my right hon. Friend the Member for Maidstone and The Weald (Miss Widdecombe) but the hon. Member for Southwark, North and Bermondsey (Mr. Hughes).

Mr. Speaker: If manuscript amendments are submitted, I shall obviously consider them, as I always do.

WELSH GRAND COMMITTEE

Ordered,

That—

(1) the matter of the Budget Statement and its implications for Wales, being a matter relating exclusively to Wales, be referred to the Welsh Grand Committee for its consideration;

(2) the Welsh Grand Committee shall meet at the County Hall, Cwmbran, on Monday 12th March at half past Ten o'clock to take questions under Standing Order No. 103 (Welsh Grand Committee (questions for oral answer)), and to consider the matter of the Budget Statement and its implications for Wales under Standing Order No. 107 (Welsh Grand Committee (matters relating exclusively to Wales)), proceedings being interrupted at Four o'clock.—[Mr. Pearson.]

Orders of the Day — House of Commons (Removal of Clergy Disqualification) Bill

Considered in Committee, pursuant to Order [6 February].

[SIR ALAN HASELHURST in the Chair]

Mr. Michael Fallon: On a point of order, Sir Alan. I am sorry for interrupting, but may I raise with you the availability of the responses to the consultation document, which underlie the Bill? As Committee proceedings get under way, it would be helpful if we had the fullest information, as a Standing Committee would have. The explanatory notes, which you may have before you, refer to the consultation process that the Government undertook before producing the Bill. On Second Reading, the Minister in charge prayed in aid the results of the consultation with the various Churches concerned. However, when I asked the Library whether the Churches' replies had been deposited there, I was told that this was not a public consultation exercise.
I have not telephoned the Minister's office—I gather that that is rather dangerous and one might lose one's job over it—but this point matters. Allowing priests to stand for Parliament is a significant change to the constitution and one would expect such a change to involve a consultation. A consultation has been conducted, but one would also expect the Minister to make the results available. On Second Reading, he said:
All were content for the restrictions to be removed."—[Official Report, 6 February 2001; Vol. 362, c. 806.]
However, perhaps that does not convey the complexity of the Churches' response on some issues and the Committee will therefore be forced to rely on his interpretation of those responses, rather than have the documents to hand.
Would it be in order to suspend proceedings for a few minutes so that the material could be made available? In Standing Committee, it is normal for such a request to be made and, indeed, for a Minister's office to supply the necessary documents.

The Chairman of Ways and Means (Sir Alan Haselhurst): I have allowed the hon. Gentleman to air his point in full, but I have to tell him that it is not a matter for the Chair; it is a matter for debate. I have no doubt that he will have the opportunity to press the point further in the course of later debates.

Clause 1

REMOVAL OF DISQUALIFICATION OF CLERGY

Miss Ann Widdecombe: I beg to move amendment No. 14, in page 1, line 5, at beginning insert "Subject to subsection (1A),"

The Chairman: With this it will be convenient to discuss the following amendments: No. 13, in page 1, line 6, after "ordained", insert—
'to the office of priest or deacon'.

No. 12, in page 1, line 7, after "minister", insert "(or the recognised equivalent)"
No. 15, in page 1, line 7, at end insert—
'(1A) A person is disqualified from being or being elected as a member of the House of Commons if—

(a) he has been ordained to the office of priest or deacon in accordance with any form of episcopal ordination, and
(b) he is practising as a priest or deacon.'.

Miss Widdecombe: I should say at the outset that there will be free votes for Conservative Members on all the issues being debated in Committee and on Report, though the Government obviously intend not to allow that stage of consideration, as well as on Third Reading.
I have moved the amendment to try to distinguish between serving and ex-priests. The Minister will be aware that I said on Second Reading that I was unhappy with the prospect a practising priests, as opposed to ministers in non-conformist Churches, being able to sit in the House. Bishops of the Church of England, who are, of course, practising are allowed to sit in the other place. However, they do not have 70,000 constituents to look after, nor do they have long and complicated Committee interests. Their attendance tends to be confined to debates on issues that have t direct impact on matters on which the Church has, or is expected to have, a view.
An ordained priest who had not given up his orders would serve as a Member of Parliament both as a priest consecrated to the full-time service of almighty God and one engaged in the service of Caesar in this place. That is, in my view, an amazing combination even to contemplate, but we are now putting the possibility of such a combination into law. The proposal needs to be tested on its merits, and should be viewed entirely separately from the issue of ex-priests.
1.30 pm
We all know why the Bill is being introduced: it is to enable a particular prospective Labour party candidate to take his seat if he is successful. It is not about great issues of principle. As I said on Second Reading, the Bill could have been presented on at least four earlier occasions—I subsequently discovered a fifth—had the Government been seriously moved by its merits. The fact is, however, that it was not presented on those occasions, because it was of no interest t. the Government until it affected a Scottish Labour candidate, who suddenly realised that if he won he would not be able to sit in the House. He, of course, is an ex-priest.

Mr. Andrew Mackinlay: I may be able to deal with some of the right hon. Lady's other points later if I catch your eye, Sir Alan, but I now have a question about the narrow point relating to episcopally ordained and practising priests. Does the right hon. Lady extend that to a priest ordained in the Liberal Catholic Church or any of the old Catholic Churches? She should bear in mind, for instance, that our late and distinguished friend Dr. Eric Taylor, Assistant Clerk of the House, was ordained as a priest in the Liberal Catholic Church. Would


she have excluded him or his colleagues for seeking election, given that such people are by definition part-time pastors as well as episcopally ordained priests?

Miss Widdecombe: I am going to stick to—

Mr. Mackinlay: The right hon. Lady does not know the answer.

Miss Widdecombe: I do, but I am going to stick to the definitions on which we have worked throughout. I fully acknowledge that they are arguable: I doubt whether anyone here would suggest that there is a logical coherence in the definition of what constitutes a priest and, for that matter, the definition of what constitutes an ex-Roman Catholic priest. No one is likely to claim that those definitions are perfect.

The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for the Home Department (Mr. Mike O'Brien): The right hon. Lady described David Cairns as an ex-priest. I understand that he is currently a priest, although he no longer conducts the Mass: he no longer does the work of a priest, and I gather that he has no intention of returning to the priesthood. Under the rules of the Catholic Church, however, once a priest, always a priest. That presents one of the difficulties and in many ways illustrates the point that the right hon. Lady appears to making.

Miss Widdecombe: Indeed. The Minister may recall that during our last debate I called out, from a sedentary position, "Once a priest, always a priest".
It is already possible for members of the Church of England who have been ordained and have forsaken the priesthood to be elected to sit and to serve. That is not possible if they are currently serving members. There is a distinction between those who have left the priesthood and those who are currently serving. The candidate on whose behalf all this shemozzle is taking place no longer practises—although I agree that "once a priest, always a priest" is one of the more confusing issues.
What I am trying to ascertain is whether, when we gave the Bill a Second Reading—unwisely, in my view—we should have explored in more detail the issue of allowing someone who is currently practising to sit, and allowing someone who no longer practises to sit, regardless of whether his Church has released him from the title or order of the priesthood.

Mr. Eric Forth: Is not the point that my right hon. Friend has introduced to the debate more properly a matter for the Church or religious denomination or institution itself an. I its adherents than for the law? The issue on which she is now touching—whether we need the law to rescue religious beliefs and believers from themselves—is very important.

Miss Widdecombe: We are already using the law for that purpose. That is why we are having this debate. If we had always taken the view that the matter was nothing to do with Parliament, there would not be a law prescribing who can and who cannot sit in our midst. There is already such a law. No religious denomination really has the power to prevent its ex-priests from doing anything that they like. Therefore, one cannot sensibly argue that we

can leave it to the Pope or to the Archbishop of Canterbury when his people have forsaken the priesthood, renounced their vows and decided that they are not going to be bound by the strictures of whoever it was to whom they previously pledged obedience. I think that my right hon. Friend will acknowledge that there is some difficulty in just passing the whole matter over to others.

Mr. Mackinlay: I am struggling to understand why the right hon. Lady—who objects to the legislation because she thinks that a pastor has too great a work load—makes a distinction between those who are episcopally ordained and other ministers of religion.

Miss Widdecombe: The law does.

Mr. Mackinlay: If the right hon. Lady were to pursue her argument to its logical conclusion, she would be seeking to amend the Bill to exclude ministers of other religions. I am a walking witness to the fact that the hon. Member for North Antrim (Rev. Ian Paisley) is, according to his lights, an extremely good and diligent pastor; I have been to Martyrs Memorial church, which is extremely good value in terms of preaching and in every other term. He also demonstrably fulfils his role as a very diligent, albeit controversial, hon. Member. Why is there a distinction between those who are episcopally ordained and those who are ministers of religion but not ordained?

Miss Widdecombe: As I made very clear to the hon. Gentleman on Second Reading, the issue is being debated from the point of view of conscience. He will be aware that some of us regard the priesthood as something that is consecrated and flows from recognising the orders of those who do the ordination in the first place. There are other denominations, to which neither he nor I belong, that do not take that line in their recognition of ministers. I have always held that view. However, it is not only a matter of where I might be coming from; in this case, the law itself makes the distinction. Therefore, operating on the basis of the distinction that the law already makes, I am trying to examine whether, on that same basis, we should be proceeding as was decided on Second Reading.

Siobhain McDonagh: The Bill says that we should not make a distinction between those who are episcopally ordained and those who are not, whether they are Baptists, Methodists or any of the other great faiths. Surely we are saying that it is up to Churches themselves to decide what their ministers or priests can and cannot do and that it is not up to the state to do that. Our job is to extend as far as we possibly can the boundaries of those who can stand.
Some of us share and practise the same religion. In a way, the fact that Catholicism is at the centre of this particular case might obstruct us from seeing the overall illogical nature of the debate. However, if we want to go ahead and attempt to define in law what an ex-priest is, we really will have the wrath of the Catholic Church on us.

The Chairman: Order. The hon. Lady is catching a bad habit from the hon. Member for Thurrock (Mr. Mackinlay) in making an intervention into a speech. An intervention must remain an intervention, even in Committee.

Mr. Mackinlay: I anointed her.

Miss Widdecombe: Whether the hon. Lady made an intervention or a speech. it did not take us much further.


With all due respect, she was raising exactly the same point as that raised by my right hon. Friend the Member for Bromley and Chislehurst (Mr. Forth), and I answered it. I do not see much point in repeating the answer. It is worth while debating whether it is proper for people who have been episcopally ordained—I know that the hon. Member for Thurrock (Mr. Mackinlay) will complain that I confine myself to that, but so does the law—and are full-time serving priests to sit in this House.

Dr. Norman A. Godman: Will the right hon. Lady give way?

Miss Widdecombe: I hope that the intervention is sensible.

Dr. Godman: The right hon. Lady speaks with characteristic courtesy and all the fervour of a recent convert—[Interruption.] To someone born into the Church, she is a recent convert. Would not proposed section (1A) in amendment No. 15 harm the interests of former priests?

Miss Widdecombe: No, I do not believe that it would. On the other hand, my position is straightforward, as I have always said that once one is a priest, one is always a priest. By tabling the amendment, I was endeavouring to debate a distinction that was not made on Second Reading, when we debated matters in the round. What do we accept in the case of ex-priests? If somebody enters holy orders, subsequently leaves and then wants to pursue some other avenue in life, why should not they be allowed to do so in law? There is a quite serious case to be made on that basis. There is a distinction, however, between whether such people should be able to sit in this place and whether somebody who is consecrated, practising and has a flock should be able to do so, which is worthy of debate.
The House will know, because I said it on Second Reading, that I do not believe that the two go together. I believe also, however, that there are other big issues concerning bishops, which may be debated under later amendments. If the Bill were enacted, a bishop would be able to sit in this place. I see a distinction between a fully serving diocesan bishop not being allowed to sit in this place, because he could be called to the House of Lords, and a suffragan bishop, who is not—I was about to say in danger—likely to be called to the other place. We have gone into this rather too quickly because of the Labour candidate in question, and we have not properly considered a host of refinements that raise further questions.
I shall endeavour to press the amendment to a Division because it would at least be appropriate if those of us who do not believe that consecrated priests should be involved in this place had the opportunity to put that on record.

Dr. Godman: I promise to be brief.
The right hon. Member for Maidstone and The Weald (Miss Widdecombe) has said a couple of times that once a priest, always a priest. It would be fair to say that that complies with paragraph 3 of canon 285 of the Roman Catholic code of canon law 1983, which states:
Clerics are forbidden to assume public office whenever it means sharing in the exercise of civil power.

Although I have no experience as a parliamentary draftsman, my concern—I asked the right hon. Lady about this—is that the wording of amendment No. 15, against which I shall happily vote regardless of whether it is the subject of a three-line Whip or is a free vote, as I believe it should be because it is a matter of conscience, would harm the interests of former priests. That is a serious charge to lay against the right hon. Lady, whose attention I do not expect to receive, although I am glad that her hon. Friend, the hon. Member for Buckingham (Mr. Bercow), is listening.
1.45 pm
I know a goodly number of fine, decent and honourable men who have given up the priesthood. A man whom I am honoured to say is a very close friend of mine gave up the priesthood after 25 years of selfless and remarkable service to his parishioners in Glasgow. He decided that he could no longer accept the canon law on celibacy and that he wanted to lead an ordinary life, as many others throughout the Catholic Church have decided to do. That man now leads a happily married life in the south of Glasgow.
There is no chance of the right hon. Lady's amendment being accepted because it does not make sense and it is harmful to those who have left the priesthood. [Interruption.] Yes it is, in my view.

Miss Widdecombe: Will the hon. Gentleman give way?

Dr. Godman: I shall give way with, I hope, better grace than the right hon. Lady gave way to me.

Miss Widdecombe: I am grateful to the hon. Gentleman for giving way, and for doing so in a state of grace. Amendment No. 15 would not affect those who have left the priesthood because of the use of the word "and", not "or". The amendment says that he would be disqualified if he has been ordained to the office of priest and he is practising as a priest or deacon.

Dr. Godman: That is an assurance of sorts, but it is a question of interpretation. I stick to what I said: the amendment is unhelpful.
Of course, I am closely involved in what has become known as the Cairns affair in the west of Scotland. In this place, just three weeks ago, I had to defend the good faith of the members of the local Labour party, who were quite unaware of the anomaly faced by Mr. Cairns. He chose not to make this known at the hustings. That was a decision for him and his conscience. I am saying, in all conscience, that I am deeply disturbed by the right hon. Lady's amendment. She seems to be seeking to subsume the law of the United Kingdom under that of Roman Catholic law. That I find unacceptable.
A priest may choose to give up his parish duties and take up what I think is a more normal life. I have never been convinced about the law concerning compulsory celibacy—I think that it is harming the Church badly. I hasten to say that I speak as a lapsed Catholic. I was born and baptised into the Church, but I left. It was many years before the right hon. Lady entered the Church—there was no link between my departure and her arrival into the Church, I am pleased to say.
It is only right and proper that we enact the Bill. I believe perhaps in a Leninist way—I am old Labour rather than a Marxist or a Leninist—that in the light of the right hon. Lady's comments about a certain candidate, the ends justify the means. That is why I support the Bill but certainly not amendment No. 15.
At present, if that good friend of mine in Glasgow chooses to stand for the Scottish Parliament, it seems that there is no impediment to his doing so and, if he were successful, to taking his seat there. The same holds for the Northern Ireland and Welsh Assemblies, and it should hold for this place, too. It might improve matters in this place if we had a few former priests on the Benches.

Mr. David Winnick: Does my hon. Friend accept that we would take precisely the same attitude towards the Bill if the person concerned was a Conservative or Liberal candidate? I certainly would. It would make not the slightest difference.
Does my hon. Friend also accept that there should be no discrimination against anyone in this place? Catholics campaigned to be able to stand for Parliament and so did Jews in 1860. Charles Bradlaugh who represented Northampton, was refused the right to sit in this Chamber four times because he had no religious views. We want an all-inclusive House of Commons, and I hope that that will always be the case.

Dr. Godman: I agree with my hon. Friend. As soon as this anomaly became known to people in the west of Scotland—I do not think that ordinary people knew about it before—a number of Catholics asked me whether it was yet another element in discrimination that they had suffered down the years. I make that point in relation to amendment No. 15. Catholics and others, from the Church of Scotland and from elsewhere, have said that the anomaly is absurd and should go. I hope that when I address a meeting of ministers and priests in my constituency tomorrow, I shall be in the happy position of being able to say that the amendments—especially amendment No. 15—have been rejected and that the Bill is proceeding on its way to the other place, which should be abolished anyway.

Mr. Fallon: I shall speak to amendment No. 13, though I confess that amendment No. 14, moved by my right hon. Friend the Member for Maidstone and The Weald (Miss Widdecombe), covers a mach bigger point. Although she kindly indicated that we have a free vote, I am happy to tell her that if she chooses to press it to a Division, I shall be in the Lobby with her.

Mr. Mike O'Brien: I thank the hon. Gentleman for giving way to allow me to let him know that I have asked my officials to ensure that at least some of the letters from the Churches that we consulted will be placed in the Library, as he requested. Letters from the United Kingdom Churches—Catholic, Church of England and so on—should now be in the Library, or at least on their way there. We are still seeking the consent of the Catholic Church in Ireland and the Church of Ireland to allow their letters to be placed in the Library. I shall obtain that as soon as possible.

Mr. Fallon: I am not just grateful, but stunned at such speedy action by a Minister. It is important that the responses are in the Library so that we may read the wording used by the Churches on these complex issues.
I was speaking specifically to amendment No. 13. The Bill appears to have been drafted rather hastily. It contains no definition of "ordained", and we should be clear on exactly what we are talking about. My amendment reflects the wording of The House of Commons (Clergy Disqualification) Act 1801, which will be repealed by the Bill, picking out the words "priest or deacon". I note that my right hon. Friend the Member for Maidstone and The Weald picked out the same phrase for amendment No. 15, and I hope—indeed pray—that if I support her on amendment No. 14, she may be moved to support me on amendment No. 13. I stress that it is essentially a drafting, technical amendment, and is not as significant as amendment No. 14, which I shall support.

Mr. Mackinlay: During this Committee stage, I want to express some irritation. My hon. Friend the Member for Mitcham and Morden (Siobhain McDonagh) initiated a private Member's Bill that would, in effect, have introduced the measure before us, but because of our procedures, it was not enacted. I had previously questioned the Home Secretary about the desirability of such a measure during this Parliament, but he saw me off. We know that the Bill is now being introduced because of events in Greenock and Port Glasgow—

Dr. Godman: Inverclyde.

Mr. Mackinlay: I apologise to my hon. Friend the Member for Greenock and lnverclyde (Dr. Godman). That is the reason for the Bill's introduction, and it is the worst possible reason for making a change. Nevertheless, it is a change that we should make. Sometimes, I am a moderniser, while some of my good friends on the Front Bench are deeply conservative: they should have taken the initiative sooner as a matter of human rights and enfranchisement, rather than introducing a Bill now for the worst possible reason. I wanted to make that point, and I do so unashamedly. I wish that the Home Secretary and others would listen more to Labour Members and others in this place. It would be better for the House.
Also on a serious note, long before I had an early ambition to be a Member of Parliament, I wanted to be not a train driver but a priest. I remember telling a small group of children about it in later years. They were pretty geared up and they said that it reminded them of a parable. I asked what they meant and they said, "A man came from Jericho and fell among robbers." They were referring to the fact that I took a different course. I persuaded them that the honourable House was not like that, but the course of my life could have been somewhat different had ambitions from early childhood been sustained.
More recently, I remember that the vicar of East Tilbury, who was a good friend of mine in the constituency and has now moved on, was indignant that he was prevented by law from standing for election to the House of Commons. He did not want to stand, but he found the fact that he was prevented from standing an affront to his human rights. He pressed me on the matter; he was the cause of my tabling the original question to the Home Secretary. The fact that he was prevented from standing by virtue of his calling is discrimination that is contrary to human rights and to our traditions of democracy in the House.

Mr. Desmond Swayne: Is not the phrase "by virtue of his calling" the key point? That is


the higher calling. If the priest exercises his mind overmuch with his rights, is he not giving rather less attention than he ought to his duties and responsibilities to his flock?

Mr. Mackinlay: I am coming to that point. It is an interesting one. I listened carefully to the right hon. Member for Maidstone and The Weald (Miss Widdecombe) when she moved her amendment, and I think that it is fair to say that part of the thrust of her argument was that a good priest—for some reason, she makes the distinction between those who are episcopally ordained and ministers of religion, as if they had different obligations to the people for whom they provide pastoral care—cannot possibly have time to give service to the House of Commons. That is a very dangerous argument for any of us here to advance, and especially for a Conservative Member.
Yesterday, I stumbled across the Register of Members' Interests, which has now been published, and my breath was taken away by the dexterity with which my hon. Friend the Member for Brent, East (Mr. Livingstone) and the hon. Member for Banbury (Mr. Baldry) can apparently fulfil all their other obligations and still fulfil their obligations to the House of Commons. I am amazed at, and admire, their dexterity.
I invite people to look at the Register of Members' interests. I only wish that Members of Parliament were full-time. We are told that it is perfectly proper and honourable, and that as a matter of capacity, it is possible for people to fulfil the office of Member of the House of Commons and diligently pursue other offices as well—except, if we accept the argument of the right hon. Member for Maidstone and The Weald, if one is a Roman Catholic priest or a practising priest of the Church of England. It is illogical to suggest that there is an incompatibility.

Mr. John Bercow: If the hon. Gentleman attended the Second Reading debate, he will know that I am sympathetic to the Bill. May I counsel caution to him in traducing, deliberately or inadvertently, the track record of hon. Members on a particular side of the House? Does he accept what the empirical evidence will demonstrate to him—that the most active and assiduous attenders of the Chamber sit on the Conservative Benches?

Mr. Mackinlay: If the hon. Gentleman looks at the Official Report tomorrow, he will see that I carefully crafted and weighed up every word that I uttered about my fellow Members of the House of Commons. I expressed some amazement, nay admiration, for their dexterity and capacity diligently to fulfil both the office of Member of the House of Commons and other obligations. I only wish that I was as qualified—or even ordained—so to do.
2 pm
There is an important point that relates to the remarks of my hon. Friend the Member for Walsall, North (Mr. Winnick) and to a matter that we have also debated in this place: should the parliamentary oath be an

impediment to serving here? I am amazed that hon. Members cannot understand that the right to be a representative in this place should come from the people alone. If the people want to put up the candlestick maker, the clock maker, the good, the bad, the ugly, the malevolent, the eccentric—[Interruption.]—the National Front, a minister of one religion or a pastor of another, that is their right. If people overextend themselves so that they are dilatory in discharging their office as Members of the House of Commons, that is something that the electorate can and should take into account if those people offer themselves for re-election. Indeed, their electoral opponents could legitimately draw attention to their conduct, their stewardship and their attendance to the business of the House.
It is irrelevant w here those who offer themselves as candidates come from. It is the right of people in every constituency to choose their representative in this place. It is not for us to impose conditions. As well as supporting the measure, I want a greater extension of the possibilities by doing away with the problem of the oath. Historically, the oath was an impediment to membership of this place, and it remains so.

Mr. Winnick: Is my hon. Friend aware that he is using almost the same words as those who argued for the right of Charles Bradlaugh to enter this place? As I pointed out, Bradlaugh was refused on four occasions; and even when he was willing to take the oath, the House said that it would be a mockery. However, he lived long enough to hear the House apologise for its conduct. He established a right without whit h many of us would not be able to be Members of the House of Commons.

Mr. Mackinlay: Indeed. Furthermore, if those impediments exist, either people are invited to ignore such unenforceable provisions or they have to do so anyway, because their conscience dictates that they are entitled to be Members of this place.
I shall come to the question of whether a priest is laicised or has renounced his priesthood in a moment. However, we are illustrating the absurdity of the amendment proposed by the right hon. Member for Maidstone and The Weald. We touched on the oath as an example. Fianna Fal1 Members were kept out of the Free State Parliament because they had to sign an oath of allegiance to George V. Eventually, De Valera said that the procedure was charade and signed the oath. That is not healthy—

The Chairman: Order. I am sorry to interrupt the hon. Gentleman, but I think I need to try to maintain a distinction between matters that are better discussed on Second Reading an, I those that are directly applicable to the amendment that we are discussing. I have given him some leeway for illustration, but he must now come back to the point of the amendment.

Mr. Mackinlay: I am grateful to you, Sir Alan
Amendment No. 15 refers to "episcopal ordination". The right hon. Member for Maidstone and The Weald seems to believe that there can be some material distinction between people who are episcopally ordained—primarily, although not exclusively, in the Roman Catholic Church and the Church of England.


As she has invited us to do so, we must look into what episcopal ordination means. It relates to episcopal succession, a concept that even some of the most distinguished theologians of those churches and other denominations consider somewhat dubious. The question turns on whether there has been a continuity, since the apostles, in the laying on of hands in an order, so that there can be political succession.

Mr. Swayne: Will the hon. Gentleman give way?

Mr. Mackinlay: I will give way in a moment, but I am dealing with the right hon. Lady's argument.
The concept is challengeable by theologians. It is nonsense that it should be an issue in British constitutional law. Bishop Montefiore—a distinguished former Member of another place and the Anglican bishop of Birmingham—challenges that view in one of his tracts. In dealing with the validity of Anglican orders, about which the Roman Catholic Church and the Church of England have disagreed for some 150 years, he said that the question of the laying on of hands is dubious.
If the right hon. Lady's proposal were passed, could a part-practising priest be elected to tie House? If he were challenged, his defence might be to challenge the meaning of the phrase "episcopal ordination" That would involve the absurdity of going back not hundreds but thousands of years, and bringing in theologian; as witnesses to say whether the ceremony, rubric and intention of the laying on of hands, which goes right back to the apostles, was involved. I invite the House to consider how absurd that would be.

Miss Widdecombe: Will the hon. Gentleman give way?

Mr. Mackinlay: I shall give way to the right hon. Lady in a moment, but I hope that I am diligently dealing with her proposals from a constitutional and a canon law point of view.
The right hon. Lady failed to respond to the point about the very important—albeit minor—religious denominations that ordain episcopally. For example, Dr. Eric Taylor—Assistant Clerk at the House of Commons who sat alongside your predecessors, Sir Alan—was ordained in the Liberal Roman Catholic Church and became a bishop in that Church. His orders were fully recognised as valid by the Church of England and the Roman Catholic Church. The right hon. Lady has not explained whether that small but fully recognised denomination would be excluded.
Orthodox Churches are now extensively found in the United Kingdom—the Greek Cypriot Church is one of the bigger ones. Would a priest or minister of the Orthodox Church be excluded, and if so, on what basis?

Miss Widdecombe: The hon. Gentleman is trying to suggest that such matters are irresolvable, and that if someone said that his ordination was not episcopal, we should have to go back 2,000 years to prove the opposite. That exact issue arose in the argument about the ordination of women priests, when certain priests of the Anglican Church wished to move to the Roman Catholic Church. The issue was whether their orders could be recognised, because generally, Anglican orders are not

recognised by the Roman Catholic Church, as the hon. Gentleman will know. However, the orders could be recognised when the ordination had taken place in a line that was demonstrable from old bishops. Those lines are already established; they are on record. So it is much easier to resolve the question than the hon. Gentleman suggests. My answer to the other question is that where orders are recognised as valid, those involved have been episcopally ordained.

Mr. Mackinlay: The right hon. Lady implies that she would extend the constitutional impediment to priests of other religions. I understand that the current legislation relates exclusively to priests in the Roman Catholic Church and the Church of England.

Siobhain McDonagh: The legislation also includes priests in the Orthodox Churches because they, too, are episcopally ordained. It might be useful if we were to concentrate on the Greek Orthodox Church, rather than the Catholic Church, because we seem to be going off in a number of directions that are perhaps not that relevant.

Mr. Mackinlay: In any event, for the reasons that we have adduced, priests should not be excluded. The right hon. Lady has not dealt with priests who have the approval of the Holy See to stop fulfilling the office of priest—laicisation is the term used. I regret that the current Holy Father has tightened up on allowing his bishops to grant laicisation. The result has been that many people have left the "priesthood"—I use that term in inverted commas, because once a priest, always a priest—without the permission of their bishops. Therefore, they have not been laicised. We then get this absurd blurring of their position. They are still priests and are fully empowered to administer the sacraments.
In the Church of England—it is a very good practice in many cases—some priests are part-time. They may work in commerce or banking and fulfil their priestly duties on a part-time basis. Why should they be impeded from standing for the House of Commons? The right hon. Member for Maidstone and The Weald has not dealt with that black and white issue, and she cannot do so because her amendments and her deeply—I do not know—conservative view—[Interruption.] The right hon. Lady says that I took a long time to get that phrase out, but it is very difficult to find adjectives that adequately describe her troglodyte view. Her view is not mediaeval but, as I have said, goes back 2,000 years.
If we look in the Official Report tomorrow, we shall see that someone said that this issue was not easily resolvable—but, of course, it is. We should pass this Bill and move on to the next argument, which is about the oath. We have got to deal with the problem. I hope that hon. Members will do that, not because of Greenock and Inverclyde, but because it is a matter of matter of human rights. It is a matter of principle to extend our democracy, so I hope that the Committee will dismiss these absurd amendments and the House will support the Bill's Third Reading.

Mr. Forth: I declare my personal position, because it is important in such a debate that everyone knows where we are coming from. I am not a member of any Church or faith. In that respect only, I probably represent in my modest way more people in this country than most of


those who have spoken or who are likely to speak. I can therefore claim to come to the issue from a genuinely impartial point of view. I have no involvement with faith, Church or religion, so I consider the issue from that perspective.
In principle, I support the thrust of the Bill. On this point, I share the views expressed by the hon. Member for Thurrock (Mr. Mackinlay). It is a matter for the voters only to judge who should come to this place. However, to elaborate on what he said—I hesitate to say that I am correcting him—the House of Commons Disqualification Act 1975 contains a list of the people who are disqualified from election to the House of Commons. They include senior civil servants, judges, ambassadors, members of the forces and the police, paid members of the boards of nationalised industries—it is a pity that there are any left—Government-appointed directors of commercial companies, of whom there certainly should be none, and directors of the Bank of England: bless their cotton socks.

Mr. John Gummer: Has my right hon. Friend noted that those posts are all connected in that they are, in some sense, offices of profit under the Crown? The difficulty with this Bill is that it deals with a residual issue whereby Roman Catholics were specifically excluded. Will he consider the fact that other disqualifications apply to Her Majesty's Roman Catholic subjects? However, they are not dealt with by this Bill because it applies to a particular person in particular circumstances. That is what I object to in the Bill.

Mr. Forth: I am grateful to my right hon. Friend because I was going to say, in parenthesis, that I will not support the Bill unless the amendment tabled by my hon. Friend the Member for Sevenoaks (Mr. Fallon) and myself is accepted. I will not support a Bill that has been introduced at this stage to benefit one individual in a very political fashion, but that is a matter for subsequent debates and perhaps for Third Reading. However, I share my right hon. Friend's view.
2.15 pm
I would support any measure that sought to remove an artificial, arbitrary, historic, traditional or any other kind of discrimination against the members of any Church or faith. Because I see all Churches or faiths in exactly the same way, I see no reason to discriminate. I understand the ramifications of any change for the established Church and the monarchy, and they will have to be resolved properly—not with such indecent haste. My support for the measure in principle is unshakeable but, unless we amend the timetable, I will regrettably be unable to support the Bill in its present form.
My amendment No. 12 may be unique. It is certainly very rare in that it exhibits what I would normally describe as political correctness. When I examined the Bill, a doubt entered my mind as to whether the use of the words "minister", "religious denomination" and "ordained" would necessarily cover all Churches and all faiths. I wish I heard less of it, but I hear endlessly about how we are now a multicultural society and that all faiths are equal and welcome. To the extent that that is the case, such a Bill should cover beyond doubt with equal validity



all the people who may be affected. That covers the point that my right hon. Friend the Member for Suffolk, Coastal (Mr. Gummer) made, but in a slightly different way.
I have searched elsewhere for definitions of the crucial terms that appear it the Bill. I looked up the word "minister" in my thesaurus. It first resorted to the term "clergyman", which it defined as
one duly ordained to the service of God in the Christian Church.
My anxieties were therefore multiplied. The terms of art used in the Bill rely on the words "minister" and "ordination", but I have seen a definition that relates them simply to the Christian Church. Interestingly, the thesaurus offered alternatives to the word "minister"; they included cleric, divine, parson, preacher, priest, reverend, chaplain, curate, pastor and vicar and—because it was an American thesaurus— it offered several other suggestions that I thought I had better not repeat in this place.
That gives us an id m of the difficulty of the issues that we are now exploring. Things get more intriguing when one considers the use of the term "the Christian Church". As the hon. Member for Thurrock asked, does it include the orthodox Churches? Obviously, it must, but what about—I hope that I do not offend anyone—Jehovah's Witnesses or the Plymouth Brethren?

Mr. Gummer: I am happy to inform my right hon. Friend that neither of those denominations has ministers, so there is no difficulty. Jehovah's Witnesses are, of course, heretical and potty. What is more, they do not vote in elections as they are still waiting for the theocratic kingdom that is unlikely to come.

Mr. Forth: That is, a matter for Jehovah's Witnesses, but I am not sure that my right hon. Friend has answered my question in the way that he had hoped to. In the list that I cited, "preacher" was offered as a possible alternative to the word "minister". No doubt I shall have to elaborate on this point, because I have not yet satisfied all members of the Committee. However, my point is that the alternative terms for "minister" show the difficulty that we shall face unless we put the matter beyond doubt. That is the reason for the wording of my amendment.

Mr. Bercow: My right hon. Friend the Member for Suffolk, Coastal (Mr. Gummer) is entirely correct to say that Jehovah's Witnesses do not vote, but I certainly do not identify with what he said about their being potty—far be it from me to cast aspersions. I am a mild-mannered fellow and I would in no way descend to that level of abuse. I should point out that the same goes in terms of non-voting for members of the Plymouth Brethren. However, the fact that neither the Plymouth Brethren nor Jehovah's Witnesses vote does not mean that they are not entitled to ask others o vote for them.

Mr. Forth: Indeed. The fact that a large number of Labour supporters may not vote in the coming election may also have some implications, but I am not sure whether to get involved in that.

Mr. Gummer: In order that the House should not be misled by my hon. Friend the Member for Buckingham (Mr. Bercow), I should point out that it is not true that the Plymouth Brethren do not vote: only closed members do not vote, whereas open brethren do. That distinction is


very important. I have closed brethren in my constituency and they do not vote, but open brethren do. If my hon. Friend has open brethren in his constituency—

The Chairman: Order. The right hon. Member for Suffolk, Coastal (Mr. Gummer) and the hon. Member for Buckingham (Mr. Bercow) are moving to the periphery of the argument. I should like us to return to the centre.

Mr. Forth: I am grateful, Sir Alan. I do not want to be diverted from the main thrust of my argument—[Interruption.]

The Chairman: Order. As the right hon. Gentleman knows, I am always ready to help him.

Mr. Forth: Indeed, Sir Alan; I am always conscious of that.
I was at the end of my list. My right hon. and hon. Friends rather spoiled what I thought was a whimsical point, but I shall persist with it anyway. As well as giving what are now rather contentious definitions, I was going to throw in the Wee Frees—I do not know whether anyone in the Chamber understands Mat term.
It is obvious even from this brief explanation of the matter that the term "minister" is not satisfactorily defined and therefore may raise some doubts That is even more so in respect of the definition of a rabbi as one ordained and having juridical and ritual functions. In the Muslim religion, the term "mullah" is an honorary title referring to ecclesiastical dignitaries. When I got to looking up Hindu and Brahmin religions, there was also mention of the priestly order.
People of various other faiths could be subsumed into the general term of "minister" because the word "ordination" and the phrase "holy orders" arise repeatedly. The definition of "religion" gets us into even deeper water. It refers to belief in a superhuman being or beings, a personal god, a system of faith, doctrine and worship. That would encompass a very wide range of beliefs, activities and adherences.
When I looked for a definition of "ordination", what I found touched on a point that my right hon. Friend the Member for Maidstone and The Weald (Miss Widdecombe) drew to our attention. "To ordain" was defined as to set apart for office or duty, to appoint and consecrate, to dedicate or to confer holy orders. The term "dedicate" was defined as to give up wholly for some purpose. That takes us back to what my right hon. Friend said at the start of the debate.
Frankly, I do not want to get involved in all that. I am not qualified to judge—certainly in the company of my right hon. Friends—but I wanted to draw the attention of the Committee to and gain its support for my amendment, which would put it beyond doubt that where we are seeking to eliminate any disqualification of someone who is a minister or ordained as p in of a religious denomination, we intend to refer to what I have set out as the equivalents. I have tried to expand that in a Pepper v. Hart sense. If we are going down this route—and I hope that we are, because in principle I want to sweep away all historic and arcane disqualifications—we have to get the provision right and make sure that it is all-encompassing.

Mr. Gummer: I am worried about my right hon. Friend because it seems to me that e should be drawing

a distinction between the decision of this House as to who should be qualified to stand for it and the decision of Churches as to who they should allow to stand for Parliament. It seems to me to be perfectly proper for the Catholic Church to say that it does not want its priests to stand for Parliament. It can make that decision; whether or not one agrees with it is a personal matter—I declare an interest in that I am a Catholic and accept that piece of discipline—but it is not for the House to support that view or in some way to give credence to it. I am not quite sure whether my right hon. Friend has explained why his amendment deals with that issue better than the Bill does, and that is what the Committee needs to know.

Mr. Forth: I agree with my right hon. Friend, but we seem to have reached opposing conclusions. I am absolutely of the view that it is a matter for religions, Churches and faiths and their adherents to decide or determine whether or not they wish to disqualify themselves from political activity. Some approach the issue in a fundamental way, and others do so in different ways. I respect that; I have no difficulty at all with it.
There is nothing wrong with the Bill in terms of its historic context, but I may disagree with other right hon. and hon. Members in terms of the individual concerned. It would appear that it is necessary for us to put beyond doubt in legislation the fact that anyone who is a minister of religion will not be disqualified by the law from being elected to this place. I hope that we would all respect the right of members of an institution of faith—to use a rather modern, all-encompassing term—to decide what they will do and from what they may be disqualified. That is a different matter altogether. My amendment is designed to put beyond doubt the fact that we wish this to be an all-embracing principle.
Because of our history, we may have started by focusing on the Roman Catholic Church. I understand that, but I want to make sure that now, early in the 21st century, we acknowledge that we can no longer focus simply on the established Church of England, the Roman Catholic Church or other Christian denominations. Our society now consists of many different faiths, both Christian and non-Christian, and, even within the broad umbrella of the Christian faith, many others of which we may approve or disapprove. I have no view on any of them, for the reasons that I have given.
My amendment is simple, direct and uncomplicated and I hope that it will attract the support of right hon. and hon. Members. I really cannot get involved in the amendments tabled by my right hon. and hon. Friends, for reasons that I have tried to explain. However, I believe strongly that the House should be able to express its view on matters such as this. My right hon. Friend the Member for Maidstone and The Weald said that she wanted to express her view and wanted to know the view of the Committee, and I am certainly prepared to help her to divide the Committee so that Members can express their views, although that should not be taken as an expression of my supporting or not supporting the substance of my right hon. Friend's amendment.

Mr. Bercow: I wonder whether my right hon. Friend can help me. If we posit a scenario in which an individual, either with the approval of his faith and its masters or in the face of their acquiescence, decides to stand for Parliament, is elected and takes his seat, but subsequently


finds himself in conflict with his organised religion and subject to a threat of excommunication because of a speech that he has made or a vote that he has cast, does my right hon. Friend think that that would constitute a contempt of the House?

Mr. Forth: My instant response is no. I do not believe that our responsibilities lie in that direction. As a general principle, the law should not interfere in the internal workings of a Church or institution of faith. That should be respected as a matter for its adherents, not for the state. Another Bill, which will be discussed at a later date, involves the same principles, and they are of great importance. I do not agree that it is our responsibility to frame laws that would interfere arbitrarily in the internal workings of faith groups, Churches or other institutions, to sort out matters that are, by definition, issues of faith. That would be dangerous, even if we dressed them up as human rights.
I hope that I have persuaded the Committee to support my modest but important amendment. If my right hon. Friend the Member for Maidstone and The Weald wants to divide the House, I shall be only too happy to give her my assistance.

Ms Joan Ryan: I reject all the amendments. I am especially concerned about amendment No. 15. The tone of the debate worries me. I get the impression that the right hon. Member for Maidstone and The Weald (Miss Widdecombe) is interested in the issue only because of her particular faith, and many outside the House would probably agree. The remarks about the Plymouth Brethren and Jehovah's Witnesses were deeply intolerant. Some hon. Members seemed to smirk and sneer at people whose beliefs they do not have much in common with or share. Those who are members of a church that has people who are episcopally ordained—be it the Catholic Church or the Church of England—have put themselves on a higher plain. I absolutely reject that notion.
I was born and brought up a Catholic. I am committed to being tolerant and to working, living and acting in a community that is multifaith and multiracial. I want a community that is based on equality and tolerance. People outside the House will find it impossible to believe that other hon. Members approach communities on the same basis. Some of the remarks were very unchristian.

Mr. Gummer: I hope that the hon. Lady will draw a distinction between my comments on the Plymouth Brethren and the Jehovah's Witnesses. The Plymouth Brethren are respectable and earnest people who belong to a long-standing faith. Although we have different views, I respect those people. However, Jehovah's Witnesses hold a belief that is provably fraudulent and wrong. It is right to be tolerant, but not to be ignorant. Jehovah's Witnesses base their faith on doctrines that are propounded by a crook and a fraud who was arrested and found guilty as such in court. For us not to make that perfectly proper distinction is to mislead our constituents.

Ms Ryan: The right hon. Gentleman makes my case. I cannot comment on such remarks.

Mr. Bercow: My right hon. Friend the Member for Suffolk, Coastal (Mr. Gummer) is well able eloquently to

defend himself at all times. However, the hon. Lady is trying it on when she attacks my right hon. Friend the Member for Maidstone and The Weald (Miss Widdecombe) I have taken an interest in the Bill since its inception. To avoid any doubt, I am neither a Jehovah's Witness nor a member of the Plymouth Brethren. However, many of my constituents are, and I have the highest respect for both faiths.

Ms Ryan: The hon. Gentleman demonstrates that we all want to be tolerant and respect others.
It is important that we stick with the Bill as drafted. We would create or perpetuate problems were we to accept the amendments. I have some sympathy with the right hon. Member for Maidstone and The Weald. I doubt whether a practising priest could fulfil his commitment to that role while working here. Being a Member of Parliament is a full-time job. However, the same argument applies to anyone with an outside interest, such as directors of business as, lawyers or barristers. The situation is problematic whether one is a practising Catholic priest or a Church of England minister.
As for the conduct of the debate, it is important to mention—as many lion. Members have—that the Bill has been proposed because David Cairns, who is a man of great integrity, was selected to stand as a Member of Parliament. On Second Reading. my hon. Friend the Minister admitted that that is what triggered the legislation. However, we cannot hold David Cairns responsible. We would have taken the same action irrespective of a candidate's party. The Bill is long overdue and it is right that we propose it. It is wrong to make David Cairns the subject of the debate and responsible for the Bill. This is a matter of equal rights—his as much as any one else's—and he is entitled to be treated fairly.

Mr. Bercow: None of us wants to over-personalise the issues, but the hon Lady, in common with other hon. Members, has referred to Mr. Cairns. I am not going to pontificate on Mr. Cairns' s integrity. As I said on Second Reading, I have no strong views about him, for the simple reason that I have never made his acquaintance. However, she is unwise to bar g on about his integrity when, on the admission of the hon. Member for Greenock and Inverclyde (Dr. Godman)—for whom I have the highest regard—Mr. Cairns deliberately refrained from telling the constituency Labour party of the problem that would arise in the event of his selection.

Ms Ryan: That point has been made. However, it is right that David Cairns was able to put himself forward for selection on thy same footing as other candidates. Legislation that is against human rights and is discriminatory should not be able to place a millstone around his neck that prevents him from being selected. The law is complete y out of date and unnecessary. When David Cairns put himself forward for selection, he knew that he could expect a Labour Government, of all Governments, to do something about his rights.

The Chairman: Order. I think that we have heard enough on that. The hon. Lady should speak to the amendment.

Ms Ryan: Thank you, Sir Alan. I was about to sit down, but I should like to reiterate my rejection of the amendments. Two wrongs do not make a right. The Bill as it stands does the right thing.

Dr. Godman: I am exceedingly grateful to my hon. Friend for showing her characteristic courtesy by giving way to me. May I point out that I was misquoted by the hon. Member for Buckingham (Mr. B scow)? If she cares to read the Official Report, my hon. Friend will see that what I am saying is the truth.

Ms Ryan: I am certain that my hon. Friend agrees about the integrity of David Cairns and about how good a Member of Parliament he will be for Greenock and Inverclyde.

Mr. Swayne: I rise to speak in favour of amendment No. 15. I started with rather greater enthusiasm for that amendment, having made the same mistake as the hon. Member for Greenock and Inverclyde (Dr. Godman) and believed that it was a wrecking amendment. I have now heard my right hon. Friend the Member for Maidstone and The Weald (Miss Widdecombe) correct the hon. Gentleman.
Despite opposing the principle of the Bill, I acknowledge the force of the amendment. It appears to deliver a compromise that should be acceptable to those on both sides of the argument, by delivering the remedy to the problem in Inverclyde that the Bill is designed to solve and at the same time addressing absolutely the reservation held by those who oppose the principle of the Bill, which is that we do not regard I it as proper for a member of the ordained ministry of either the established Church or the Roman Catholic Church to hold a position as a Member of Parliament.

Mr. Mackinlay: Why?

Mr. Swayne: With respect, that is a Second Reading question rather than one that relates specifically to the amendment.

Mr. Mackinlay: It is a matter relating precisely to the amendment. It mentions "episcopal ordination", which almost exclusively relates to the Roman Catholic Church and the Church of England. That is my reason for asking, from a sedentary position, "Why?" A Methodist minister is not covered by the provision, yet the same arguments about compatibility advanced by the right hon. Member for Maidstone and The Weald (Miss Widdecombe) and, I assume, the hon. Member for New Forest, West (Mr. Swayne) apply. The difference is purely a matter of rubric, relating to the question of the laying on of hands and the episcopal succession. It is an absurd distinction.

Mr. Swayne: It is a distinction rooted in an historical context. I shall come later to the: hon. Gentleman's question about "episcopal ordination ", but I believe that my right hon. Friend the Member for Suffolk, Coastal (Mr. Gummer) wants to intervene.

Mr. Gummer: The amendment is even worse. A Methodist minister ordained in America is ordained episcopally; therefore, the amendment would exclude an American-ordained Methodist minister, but not an English-ordained Methodist minister The argument is not about the episcopacy, but about whet her the episcopacy is within the apostolic succession, which is a wholly

different argument and one that would exclude Anglican bishops as well as Methodist bishops. My hon. Friend must think twice before supporting the amendment.

Mr. Swayne: I remind my right hon. Friend that the amendment stands in the name of our right hon. Friend the Member for Maidstone and The Weald.

Mr. Douglas Hogg: I know that I come rather late to the debate, but at least I come with an open mind. I have a great deal of sympathy with the question raised by the hon. Member for Thurrock (Mr. Mackinlay). My hon. Friend the Member for New Forest, West (Mr. Swayne) says it is improper for a priest of the Church of England to serve as a Member of the House of Commons. Will he be so good as to explain his reasons to those who, like me, have great difficulty understanding why it is improper?

Mr. Swayne: The hon. Member for Enfield, North (Ms Ryan) said that it would be highly unlikely that a clergyman—according to my understanding of the amendment, a priest of either the Church of England or the Church of Rome—could fulfil his role as a priest and carry out the duties of a Member of Parliament. However, the hon. Lady recognised that that might apply equally to any number of other callings—if calling is a proper word to use in that respect—and I am sure that my right hon. and learned Friend the Member for Sleaford and North Hykeham (Mr. Hogg) will find that he has some sympathy with that point.
From my point of view, they are clean different things: there can be no comparison between functioning as a clergyman of the established Church or the Roman Church—a very special role, administering sacraments and occupying a leadership role in what I suppose we would now call a faith community—and carrying out an occupation that involves political controversy and political leadership.

Several hon. Members: rose—

Mr. Swayne: I face any number of Members wanting to intervene. As I have referred to her, I shall give way to the hon. Member for Enfield, North first.

Ms Ryan: Is the matter the hon. Gentleman addresses for us, or for the electorate to decide?

Mr. Swayne: Obviously, since I support the amendment, I would say that it is a question for us and one on which the House should divide. Equally, I think that it is a matter of some impertinence on our part to intrude on the decision-making processes of the Churches. The Church of Rome has a clear position: it does not believe that it is proper for its priests to hold any sort of elective office of the sort to which the Bill would welcome them. Therefore, to introduce the Bill strikes me as impertinent.

Mr. Gummer: Surely if the Church of Rome makes that decision, it is not up to us at all—the matter has been sorted out. However, my hon. Friend must explain one simple issue arising from his argument: if I were,


for example, an Anglican worker priest or a Catholic worker priest, I could work in a factory and be a priest, but not become a Member of the House of Commons and be a priest. My problem is that that is to denigrate the work of the House of Commons—to say that what we do is so unpleasant that one cannot be both a Member of Parliament and a priest. I do not approve of that. I think that what we do is as perfectly priestly a function as working on a factory floor.

Mr. Swayne: I disagree profoundly with my right hon. Friend in that respect. I share the views of my right hon. Friend the Member for Bromley and Chislehurst (Mr. Forth): I believe that consensus is no friend of the legislative process. The House should divide as often as possible and propositions should be tested by vociferous and rigorous argument. I am prepared to extend that principle beyond the confines of the Chamber to the positions that I take among my constituents: I am prepared to argue robustly about clearly political and ideological questions. I do not therefore believe it would be proper for me to occupy such a position and behave in such a way and, at the same time, to attempt to perform some priestly function and expect constituents with whom I might have profound disagreements—perhaps outside the bounds of good will, as is often the case in politics—to come and kneel at the altar and take the sacrament from my hand. That would be an abomination.

Mr. Bercow: Methinks my hon. Friend doth protest too much. None can gainsay his qualities of robustness, eloquence and ideological purity; in his company I have often greatly enjoyed dividing the House and ordinarily I am in agreement with him. However, did he not give the game away a few moments ago when he said that the practice of a priest and the pursuit of other, outside occupations were, from his point of view, clean different things? Does he accept that, in a matter of this nature, his point of view is not the basis of statute?

Mr. Swayne: I am saying only, as Martin Luther said, "Here I stand. I can do no other." Of course I speak only for my own point of view; none the less, it is a point of view that I am prepared to press in the Lobby.

Mr. Mackinlay: The right hon. Member for Suffolk, Coastal (Mr. Gummer) referred to worker priests. Had he been in the Chamber earlier, he would know that I referred to them. We have at least three diligent and highly regarded, albeit controversial, worker ministers in this place. They are Presbyterian ministers from Northern Ireland. The only distinction is that they are not episcopally ordained. Their pastoral functions and qualities are the same as those of Church of England priests or Roman Catholic priests.
The hon. Gentleman heard the argument of the right hon. Member for Maidstone and The Weald (Miss Widdecombe), whom he is supporting. She alleged that the responsibility of pastoral care led to a conflict in terms of time—

The Chairman: Order. Interventions must not become speeches. I think that the hon. Gentleman has said enough.

Mr. Swayne: With respect to the hon. Gentleman's reference to the tradition in Northern Ireland, and specifically the hon. Member for South Antrim (Dr. McCrea)—

Mr. Mackinlay: And the hon. Member for Belfast, South (Rev. Martin Smyth).

Mr. Swayne: Yes, and the hon. Member for Belfast, South (Rev. Martin Smyth).
There is a difference of tradition. There is a tradition in Northern Ireland that does not apply here. As the hon. Member for Thurrock (Mr. Mackinlay) correctly identified, those Members would not regard themselves as members of an ordained ministry in the terms that we are discussing. I am sure that the hon. Member for South Antrim would be appalled at the notion that he had been ordained for any sort of sacramental ministry.

Mr. Mackinlay: It is recorded in the Register of Members' Interests that the hon. Gentleman is a serving officer in the Territorial Army. I think that that is compatible with being a Member. However, if we accept the argument of the right hon. Member for Maidstone and The Weald, that is not so. The right hon. Lady says that a Member does not have enough time to do other things of that sort. Apparently a Catholic priest would not have enough time to serve as a Member, but apparently a serving officer in the TA would. We must think the matter through.

Mr. Swayne: It is not so much a question of time, which is important, but of role. My duties as a TA officer take up about one weekend a month. In the past, they took a great deal more time. To suggest that a clergyman—a practising priest—could continue with that commitment while serving as a Member would not say very much for the nature of his ministry.

Mr. Hogg: My hon. Friend says that it is the role that makes it inappropriate. I am not sure whether my hon. Friend is telling the Committee that the congregation would be unduly beholden to the candidate or that the candidate would be unduly beholden to the congregation. Perhaps he will make that plain.

Mr. Swayne: I am not entirely sure that I understand my right hon. and learned Friend's question.
I do not want to be distracted any further from what I regard as questions involving the principle of the Bill. I have found it odd that my remarks have been taken as controversial. I am speaking for the status quo, and in favour of amendment No. 15.
Amendment No. 15 would spare us the argument that so many Members are seeking to have. It would remove the discrimination to which the hon. Member for Greenock and Inverclyde (Dr. Godman) referred, which penalises the Roman Catholic priest because he is not able to divest himself of his orders in quite the same way that would be open to a member of the priesthood of the established Church. The amendment would deliver the remedy that is sought through the Bill. At the same time,


it would not raise profound constitutional questions, as I regard them. In its present form, the Bill would do so because the priest would have to be practising before he were disqualified. That is the key distinction.
The hon. Member for Thurrock was on better ground when he complained about the distinction of episcopal orders. As he did so, I was reminded of "Decline and Fall". The Committee will recall that the central character found himself having hands laid upon him by an episcopi vagante—a wandering bishop, who bestowed valid holy orders upon him. That blights the rest of his life in so far as it is recounted in the book.
That is not quite as fictional as it may first appear. Wandering bishops exist, and they bestow orders. I clearly recall attending a patronal festival at St. John's church, Holland road. A number of priests, or those purporting to be priests, having been so ordained, presented themselves and asked whether they could sit with the clergy during the festival.
The amendment does not deal with the possibility of those who find themselves ordained in other traditions, such as the orthodox, and those who might have been ordained in another fashion. They would be captured by the amendment. However, as long as they do not practise, the problem does not arise. The amendment deals with that. We might have widened the catchment of those who might be disqualified by the Bill, but by accepting the amendment we will have a safeguard. As I see it the principal problem comes with those who practise.
We have been told that the candidate for whom the Bill is the remedy no longer practises and has no intention to do so. However, there is nothing to say that in future he might start saying mass. If he does not start practising priestly functions, the amendment would provide a proper safeguard.

Siobhain McDonagh: I am not sure of the religious background of the hon. Member for New Forest, West (Mr. Swayne), but I imagine that he is not a Catholic. If he were, he would understand that his suggestion that Mr. Cairns might suddenly decide to say mass is an unlikely proposition.
I find it strange to argue from the Government Benches that the state has no right, or should have fewer rights, to determine which religious priests should be able to stand for membership of this place, and which should not. I found the hon. Gentleman's contribution disturbing. We would be putting ourselves in the way of individual churches. We would be putting ourselves up as a counter-force to canon law. In my view, it is for any Church, Christian or any other great faith, to decide what its ministers do, whether they can stand for Parliament and what other work they can take up It is not a question for Parliament.

Mr. Bercow: I do not want to cavil at the way in which the hon. Lady is developing her argument. However, I put it to her that there is a further and obvious lacuna in the argument of those who oppose the Bill and support the argument of my right hon. Friend the Member for Maidstone and The Weald (Miss Widdecombe), the Shadow Home Secretary, and it relates to the issue of taking one's seat. Will the hon. Lady rephrase the advocacy of her argument and accept that part of the problem is that it is perfectly in order for someone in

the situation that we have been describing to stand for Parliament, but that if he or she receives the democratic endorsement of his or her electorate, the individual cannot take up his or her seat in this place? That is an undemocratic outrage.

Siobhain McDonagh: I was aware of that. I am sorry about the way in which I phrased my argument. The hon. Gentleman is right to draw attention to a further anomaly. An ex-Catholic priest or an ex-orthodox priest, for example, can stand for Parliament. The problem is taking up his seat.
My argument with the amendment of the right hon. Member for Maidstone and The Weald (Miss Widdecombe) is not that it suggests that it is difficult for someone to be a full and proper Member and have another job, but that it does not solve the discrimination that we are discussing. If the amendment is agreed, a serving Methodist minister could be a Member, but not a serving Greek Orthodox minister. What logical reason can there be to exclude orthodox priests, but not Methodist ministers? The Bill would still be disturbing and confusing. Some aspects of the argument are being obscured because we are concentrating on the Catholic element, although I well understand why.
3 pm
The legislation is obscure. Currently, some religious officials are disqualified, but others are not. Some priests can relinquish their ministry to become a Member of Parliament, but others are unable to do so. Some Christian priests are disqualified, whereas ministers of all other religious faiths, such as Judaism, Islam and Buddhism, are eligible. All Catholic priests are disqualified. Ex-clergy are entitled to stand for election and to be elected, as we have said, but they cannot take up their seats. Non-conformist clergy are not disqualified, except for the Church of Scotland. As has been mentioned, several Protestant clerics have served and continue to serve with distinction. Finally, all episcopally ordained priests of the Anglican Church are disqualified, but not in Wales.
It is surely not up to us to determine which clerics can stand and which cannot. It is up to us to widen as far as possible people's ability to stand and to be elected, and to allow the voters to decide. If we attempt to define who is and who is not a Catholic priest, we will get into areas that are not within the scope of the business of the House, but which remain the pure preserve of canon law.

Mr. Gummer: It would be helpful if we remembered that the real problem with the law is that it confuses a series of thoughts.
Anglican clergymen are excluded from membership of the House of Commons because they were seen to have an office of profit under the Crown. The established Church was seen as being influenced by the Crown to such an extent that were an Anglican clergyman to stand for Parliament and be elected, he would not be a free agent because he would rely for his living on a Church that was subject to the Crown. That is a perfectly reasonable position; I will say later why I think that it has changed.
Catholic priests were excluded for an entirely different reason. They were excluded as part of the general determination to ensure that the Catholic faith did not


return to our land. That was a clear decision, in the same anti-Catholic vein as the Public Worship Regulation Act 1874 and the Ecclesiastical Titles Act 1871, that stopped Catholic bishops being named at the same bishopric as Anglican bishops.
The two kinds of exclusion happened to come together, and the proposed change in the law happens to touch them both, but we should not ignore the reasons why they came about. They are different, and we should argue the case differently.

Mr. Mackinlay: Is not that why—as I hope my hon. Friend the Minister will confirm on Third Reading—after the disestablishment of the Church in Wales, an Anglican priest who is ordained and serves in the Church in Wales can be elected to the House, even though he is episcopally ordained?

Mr. Gummer: That is exactly true. A clergyman of the Church of England ordained outside England, whether in Scotland, Wales or Papua New Guinea, is not covered by the same circumstance. That important distinction enables me to explain why I believe that my right hon. Friend the Member for Maidstone and The Weald (Miss Widdecombe) is wrong.

Mr. Hogg: I am grateful to my right hon. Friend for giving way, as I seek information. I am sure that his explanation of why Catholic priests were disqualified from membership is right, but when the various other disqualifications on Catholics were removed, why was that prohibition not removed?

Mr. Gummer: I dealt with the point when my right hon. and learned Friend was inadvertently absent from the Chamber. Unfortunately, all those disqualifications have not been removed, which is one of the reasons why I am so unhappy about the Bill. I would have hoped that this was an opportunity to get rid of a range of disqualifications on Catholics. For example—I shall give just one brief example, as I wish to keep to the amendment—no Catholic church may ring a bell. That would be contrary to the law.
There are a series of such disqualifications. It would have been more proper for the Government to introduce a single, simple, one-clause Bill that lifted all the disqualifications that distinguish Her Majesty's Catholic subjects as against other subjects. Hopefully we would vote on such a Bill with no discussion at all. My objection to the present Bill is that that opportunity, which the Government should have taken, was not taken. However, that is not for this debate.
I shall explain why I believe that my right hon. Friend the Member for Maidstone and The Weald is wrong. The problem with the amendment is that it makes a statement in English civil law about what is a fundamentally ecclesiastical matter. I am among those who believe that there is a distinction between those who are validly ordained and those who are not.
I ceased to be an Anglican and became a Catholic because I believed that the Church of England had ceased to be able validly to ordain priests. That is why I became a Catholic, but it was an ecclesiastical, not a civil,

decision. It is a fundamental matter of faith, more important than any civil decision that I could make. I do not underestimate such a decision; I merely say that it is different in kind.
A Catholic teaches that a priest ordained in the Catholic Church is ordained in the apostolic succession and is therefore able validly to administer the sacrament. Many Anglicans take the same view, and all the Orthodox and Armenians do. The amendment would make a distinction between those who do—actually or in their formularies, validly or because they think validly—and those who do not.
My problem with the amendment is that I do not understand what that has to do with standing for Parliament. I passionately believe in the distinction; I believe that there is a fundamental difference between a priest of the Catholic Church and the hon. Member for one of the Northern Irish constituencies who is, in a sense, self-ordained.

Mr. Hogg: Two Northern Ireland Members.

Mr. Gummer: No, the particular man is self-ordained because he decided to set up his own Church. That is a perfectly reasonable decision for him to make, but there is a difference between that view of ordination and the historic view of the Catholic Church. The difference is not a secular one; it is an ecclesiastical and religious difference. It is still a vital difference—more vital than any secular thing that I can think of.
Let us not mix the two issues up. We do not enhance the validity of the orders of Holy Church by saying what Parliament thinks about it. It does not matter two hoots to the validity of the orders of the Catholic Church what the House of Commons believes about it. If that were the case, none of us would be here. There was a time when the House of Commons said that not only were those orders not valid, but it would chop our heads off if we were found.
Let us not start saying that what Parliament thinks about the doctrines of Christ's Church is important. It is not.

Miss Widdecombe: What about the established Church?

Mr. Gummer: I shall deal with the established Church in a moment. I am dealing with my right hon. Friend's denomination.

Miss Widdecombe: And yours.

Mr. Gummer: And mine. My right hon. Friend should not object to my setting out the historic fact. We are not here to tell the Catholic Church what is valid and what is not. That is for God 's Church to decide, not for us.

Miss Widdecombe: All this would be welcome if Parliament had never taken any view about Church matters or about who might or might not sit in Parliament, but, as I pointed out from a sedentary position, we have an established Church. My right hon. Friend and I, together with a collection of non-believers and adherents of other Churches, went through the Lobbies to decide


on such issues as the ordination of women as priests and divorced clergy. He did not take the view then that that was not a proper matter for us to consider.

Mr. Gummer: That is not the issue that we are discussing now. I shall deal with the nature of the established Church in a moment. I am speaking about a Church that is not established and which is not and never has been under the jurisdiction of the House. Indeed, it has been specifically as it is because it does not hold that established view, and it is unacceptable for us to purport to say what its priests should be allowed to do.
I now move from the Catholic Church to the Anglican Church. [HON. MEMBERS: "It is the other way around."] The truth is—[Interruption.] The joke has been made, so I shall continue. I shall move in my speech from the Catholic Church to the Anglican Church, and I do so with care. The Anglican Church is the creature of the state. The Church of England was created by the state as a result of a series of factors, including Henry VIII and Elizabeth I. That is the truth of history and it is a perfectly respectable position. Historically, there was a twofold reason why clergy of the Anglican Church in England—the Church of England—were denied membership of the House. First and primarily, they held offices of profit under the Crown, or if they did not, they were hoping to do so, which was even worse in terms of the fear of simony. Secondly, it was though 1s that they were represented by the Lords Spiritual in the House of Lords. Those were the two reasons why they were excluded.
However, we now have the following problem: should a person who does not have an office of profit under the Crown, but who has ceased to be a practising Anglican clergyman, be denied membership of the House? It is extremely difficult to claim that such people should be so denied. Indeed, they have not been prevented from becoming Members of the House in the past. There have been hon. Members who were ordained as Anglicans, but as they had cast aside their orders, nobody saw fit to take their cases to court. We know that to be true. In any event, is not it most illogical to say that when the Church of England has decided that something has finished, Parliament can decide that it should not end? That is what is being suggested by those who argue that a laicised Anglican clergyman can be regarded as a lay person by the Church of England, but not by Parliament.
That is a reversal of any sense, and I am not in favour of it. It is much more sensible to argue that it is for the Church of England to decide that Anglican clergyman cannot be Members of the House, if it wishes to do so. Similarly, if the Catholic Church continues to say that its priests cannot be Members of the House, that is for it to decide. However, if people present themselves as candidates and are elected, whether they were once ordained or whatever, it is not for the House to exclude them. That should be the proper procedure, which is why I find the amendment unacceptable.
We must face the issue with which my hon. Friend the Member for New Forest, West (Mr. Swayne) dealt: the different roles that are involved. There is a difference between the role of an episcopally ordained priest and that of a Protestant minister. I point that out in case the hon. Member for Enfield, North (Ms Ryan)—I am sorry that she is not present—feels that I am being dismissive. I think that one has to be honest about people's pretensions. I mean that in a non-offensive way. People have particular

views about their ministry. The views held by Catholics about their priests are different from those that, for example, the hon. Member for North Antrim (Rev. Ian Paisley) would have about a minister. Indeed, as was suggested earlier, he would be displeased if one were to suggest that he was in any way a priest, and he makes that view very clear.
3.15 pm
A minister carries out a series of pastoral duties, including the preaching of the ecclesiastical doctrines of his particular Church, and a priest administers the sacraments. That is a very important distinction, but it cannot be of importance to parliamentary representation. My hon. Friend the Member for New Forest, West is not right to suggest that somebody who is ordained as a priest cannot be a Member of the House of Commons, but that is not the case if he is made a minister. I do not believe that that is sensible, although I understand that it is emotionally clear. Becoming a priest is the highest demand that can be made of anybody. For me, it is odd that somebody who has been made a priest would want to do something different afterwards. However, some people have no decision in the matter and it is not for me to say in this secular House—at least, it is secular in that sense—that such a person should be prevented from becoming a Member of Parliament. It is for his religious superiors to make that decision.
With great respect to my hon. Friend the Member for New Forest, West, I think that he is mistaking his vocation. As a Member of the House of Commons, it is not for him to say what our ecclesiastical superiors, either in the Church of England, to which he belongs, or in the Catholic Church, to which I belong, should decide. Our job is to ensure that if somebody is allowed to stand by somebody else, by his own conscience or whatever, he should not be stopped because he was episcopally ordained.

Mr. Gerald Howarth: I do not think that that squares with what I understood to be my right hon. Friend's position regarding the ecclesiastical legislation that comes before the House. Is he suggesting that we should forswear any involvement in the legislation that has typically been considered in the House? As I understand it, the House still has an Ecclesiastical Committee, although it might not sit or its proceedings might not be very public. As I understand it, that is the forum where we consider ecclesiastical Measures in the House.

Mr. Gummer: My hon. Friend is correct, but the Ecclesiastical Committee relates only to the business of the established Church. As there is an established Church, it is perfectly proper for the House to have the Ecclesiastical Committee, on which I have the honour of serving. Although it deals with the established Church, it does so on a non-denominational basis. Protestants, Anglicans and Catholics serve on the Committee, but it deals only with matters that relate to the effect of the establishment on the civil rights of the people of this country. That is what it is supposed to discuss.
As I have explained, the amendment would impose restrictions on people who are not members of the established Church, which makes it entirely different in


any case. When I was being teased because I said that I was about to move from the Catholics to the Anglicans, perhaps the teasing prevented hon. Members from recalling that I was making that distinction precisely because I believe that it is wholly improper for the House to take on the right to legislate for Catholics, Armenians, Holy Orthodox worshippers and so on. They are not members of the established Church and we have no right to legislate on ecclesiastical matters in respect of them. Of course, there is a question about whether we should have rights in respect of the established Church, but that is a different matter altogether.

Mr. Hogg: My right hon. Friend has just said that the Bill imposes restrictions on individuals and cited the case of the Roman Catholics. Of course, he is right in that respect, but the restrictions imposed by the old law go much further. It restricts the ability of local associations to choose their candidates and, even worse, restricts the electorate's ability to choose in a general election the person whom they want to represent them.

Mr. Gummer: rose—

The Chairman: Order. I hope that the right hon. Gentleman will bear it in mind that we are discussing the amendment, not the Bill as such.

Mr. Gummer: I am happy to return to that discussion, but what my right hon. and learned Friend the Member for Sleaford and North Hykeham (Mr. Hogg) said is germane because passing the amendment would not only exclude those who have been accorded the grace of episcopal ordination, were they still practising as clergymen or priests, but prevent the associations that wanted to adopt them and those who had already voted for them from getting such people elected to Parliament. That is wholly unacceptable, for a rational reason.
My right hon. Friend the Member for Maidstone and The Weald and I do not always agree on ecclesiastical matters, but we are usually on the same side in respect of reason. We are having a rational argument, but it is not rational to say that such people should be excluded, because nothing in their experience enables the House to say that they should not be Members of Parliament. Making a slight change by allowing those who are not doing the job to stand would be even odder, because that would suggest that those doing the job should not stand.
Some Methodists in America do not have bishops. Why should a Methodist minister who was not ordained by a bishop be allowed to sit in the House when an American Methodist who is a member of the United Methodist Church, and who was ordained by a bishop, would not be allowed to do so, even though that bishop is not in the apostolic succession and even though those people do not believe that such ordination is the same as ordination as even the Anglican Church teaches it? The amendment would take us to a pretty peculiar position.

Mr. Swayne: I merely point out that my right hon. Friend has raised profound issues that touch on the very establishment of the Church of England. The beauty of the amendment is that it would avoid all that by giving Labour Members precisely what they want—a candidate

for Greenock and Inverclyde—without stirring up those other issues, to which my opposition and that of my right hon. Friend the Member for Maidstone and The Weald is total.

Mr. Gummer: My hon. Friend cannot have that.

Mr. Gerald Howarth: Yes he can.

Mr. Gummer: Well, he can have it, but it is not true. We can all have things. I do not want to return to the Jehovah's Witnesses, but they, too, can have it, although it is not true. The fact is that all that will not wash, for the simple reason that I cannot explain to my constituents why an Armenian is not allowed to stand for Parliament if he has been ordained in the Armenian Church, while a Baptist is allowed to stand. On the other hand, Methodists of certain sorts are allowed to stand while Methodists of other sorts are not.
If I may say so, there is another aspect that my right hon. Friend the Member for Maidstone and The Weald has not thought through.

Miss Widdecombe: Just because you disagree!

Mr. Gummer: Let me put it this way. If my right hon. Friend has thought this aspect through, I would love to hear her answer. Some Pentecostal Churches have people who are called bishops. Therefore, when such a person ordains someone, one could say that he has been episcopally ordained. Can my right hon. Friend explain why a minister of the Elim Four Square Gospel Tabernacle is allowed to be a Member of the House whereas a minister of the Apostolic Tabernacle is not? They are charming people, all of them, and many of us would be hard put to distinguish between their doctrines—but, I am sorry to say, the fact is that accepting the amendment would mean that the House was suggesting that one could be a Member and the other could not. I would find it difficult to explain that distinction to the people of Walberswick. Intellectually able as they are, people in the local pub—

Mr. Hogg: The Mitre?

Mr. Gummer: No, not the Mitre. I am happy to say that it is a non-ecclesiastical pub.

Mr. Bercow: The Turk's Head?

Mr. Gummer: I am happy to say that no pub in my constituency is called the Turk's Head. [Interruption.] Why not? Because we are politically correct. If we started to use ecclesiastical terms of the clarity demanded by the amendment, we would get ourselves into severe trouble.

Miss Widdecombe: I thought that I should rise to the occasion once the mirth had subsided. My right hon. Friend's rebuke of me for making a distinction based on episcopal ordination would be valid were that concept not already what underlies the old system, which the Bill seeks to change. I have tried to stick with the old definitions, but not to make changes as significant as those that the Government want. That is all.

Mr. Gummer: Perhaps my right hon. Friend missed my remark, but at the beginning of my speech I said that


that principle did not underlie the legislation. Two principles underlie the Bill: first, the nature of the established Church of England and the fact that its clergymen were considered to hold offices of profit under the Crown; and secondly, the exclusion of Catholic priests from the House because it was the fashion of the time to believe that they were too dangerous. I only wish that they were as dangerous today, because that would be good for us all. That distinction was made, and my right hon. Friend must not introduce a false one.

Miss Widdecombe: It is not false.

Mr. Gummer: I apologise. My right hon. Friend should not introduce a misunderstood distinction, which has been used to explain an even more complex issue.
I must now address my hon. Friend the Member for New Forest, West on the question whether it is acceptable for a priest to be involved in party politics. I understand what my hon. Friend meant. I deeply oppose two attitudes to the priesthood, the first of which is that priests should be involved in party politics. I remember a minister who took that view: the late Lord Soper thought that it was impossible to be a Christian without also being a socialist. I think that that is wrong and I object to any suggestion that one cannot be a Christian and at the same time either a socialist, a Liberal or a Conservative. One cannot be a Christian and a communist or a Christian and a fascist, but one can be a Christian and a member of any of those democratic parties.
Therefore, I deeply oppose parish priests who espouse political views that derogate from their ability to be priests. However, I want priests in the pulpit to be able to talk about politics and to have a powerful voice in that respect. A fortnight ago, I was at mass and I listened to the parish priest make some telling points about the bombing of Iraq. I would not say that I agreed with every one, but a priest of the Church of God made proper statements about politics and I needed to listen to them.
The Government and the Opposition have to ask themselves big questions about bombing from on high people who are unable to defend themselves. Those moral questions have to be examined. I have still failed to get any answer to questions that I tabled about the bombing of an aspirin factory in Sudan. To me, that is a moral question. However, I am told that it is such a delicate matter of national defence that my question cannot be answered. It is right for the priest in the pulpit to be able to raise such issues, so I say to my hon. Friend the Member for New Forest, West that priests who do not take politics into account are not doing their job properly. Politics is too big a part of life for the gospel to have nothing to say about it. The question is, could those priests be party politicians in the House while they were ordained? I would be unhappy about that, but it is not for me to decide; it is for the priests to decide.
3.30 pm
There are one or two Members of Parliament who are independent—or, as in the case of the hon. Member for Thurrock (Mr. Mackinlay), independent in practice. Although I disagree profoundly with my hon. Friend the Member for Aldridge?Brownhills (Mr. Shepherd) on a range of matters, it cannot be said that he is not independent in the House. I do not consider it unreasonable for someone

to come to the House with a political label and then behave independently. Others, of course, come to the House as independents in the first place.

Mr. Hogg: Does my right hon. Friend agree that the more independent-minded Members we have, the better?

Mr. Gummer: I do not want to be led down that route, but one of the joys of debates such as this is that we hear some Members speak from the heart. That does not usually happen in the House. It is important for the House to have independent-minded and independent Members, and I would consider it perfectly proper for someone to perform such a role even were he an episcopally ordained minister of the Church of England or a priest in the Roman Catholic Church.

Dr. Godman: I have listened carefully to the right hon. Gentleman. Paragraph 3 of canon 285 in the Roman Catholic code of canon law 1983 states:
Clerics are forbidden to assume public office whenever it means sharing in the exercise of civil power.
Despite the explicitness of that law, I am given to understand by the Minister that the Catholic Church in Scotland, and indeed the Catholic Church in England and Wales, have no objection to the Bill as it stands.

Mr. Gummer: The Church has no objection because it thinks that this is its business rather than ours. I do not understand why we think it is our business; it is the business of the Catholic Church, and we should work on that basis.

Mr. Gerald Howarth: So it is the business of the Church of England to establish how many bishops should take their seats in the House of Lords, is it? I accept that it is for the Church to decide which bishops they should be.

Mr. Gummer: I am not discussing the established Church; I am discussing the Catholic Church. [Interruption.] There is a fundamental distinction to be made, and my hon. Friend must make that distinction. We happen to have an established Church in this country; we could have an argument about whether we should have one or not, but we do have one. We are now discussing something that straddles the established and the non-established Churches.
The hon. Member for Greenock and Inverclyde (Dr. Godman) referred quite properly to the canon law not of the Anglican Church—which has its own canon law—but of the Catholic Church. He was merely saying that the Catholic Church had reasons for what it decided. The Catholic Church has no bishops in the House of Lords—although if there were some there, they might say things that would shock, and would stand up to debate rather more powerfully than what I have heard from a number of bishops who are currently in that House.

Mr. Swayne: At least the Catholic bishops believe in God.

Mr. Gummer: That is certainly true.
Things used to be different. Bishops used to play an active part in politics, but they have decided, perfectly properly, that that is not how they wish to act in future.


That is a reasonable decision, and we should respect them for it. In any event, it is their business. The question of how many bishops of the Church of England should be in the House of Lords, however, is a matter for the establishment, and hence a matter for the House of Commons, because that is what we have ordained. We have not ordained the same in the case of the Catholic Church, for two reasons. First, the Church did not want it; secondly, we would not have it. After all, we threw out the Catholic Church. We said, "We're not having you as the established Church. We're going to have this lot, and we're going to do things this way." We could not have said, "But while we're about it, there are one or two things over which we will retain control." That would be a very peculiar approach.

Mr. Gerald Howarth: Does my right hon. Friend not understand that in its current form, the Bill entitles a bishop in the Church of England, or the established Church, who is not a Lord Spiritual in the other place, to stand for Parliament, and that the same applies to an ordained and practising Church of England clergyman?

Mr. Hogg: Why not?

Mr. Howarth: That is another matter. I suggest to my right hon. Friend that unless the Bill is changed, a bishop in the Church of England could stand for Parliament.

Mr. Gummer: As it happens, that is the subject of a later amendment. I shall confine myself to the subject of amendment No. 14, which relates to clergymen.
I was trying to make a distinction between two arguments that are different. The reasons for them are different, and we should approach them from a sensible historical position. We should say first that we should not exclude Catholic priests, because they do not operate under the jurisdiction and within the structure of the established Churches, and secondly that we should not exclude Anglican clergymen, because there seems to be no rational case for doing so. Things are not the same now: Anglican clergymen no longer have an office of profit under the Crown as they once did, and it is reasonable for us to respect that. When it comes to the bishops, no doubt we shall all say what we think.
I want to say something about the whole question of independence. [Interruption.] I think we have had rather a good debate so far, and I do not want sedentary interruptions to spoil it.
I know nothing about the person who is to stand as a candidate, and I would say nothing that would denigrate his position or what he said to the selection committee. I do not think any of that matters. Let me, however, say something seriously to the Minister. Although I agree with every word of the Bill, I consider it an affront that, either through ignorance or for some other reason, the Government did not present a simple Bill to exclude all the discrimination that can be applied to Her Majesty's Catholic subjects under our law.
I do not think it proper that the Cardinal Archbishop of Westminster is forbidden by law to walk down Victoria street in his clerical clothes. That is unacceptable, and in this day and age we should have removed the law. A short


Bill would have removed it. [Interruption.] It is easy enough to say that earlier Governments should have done that. I am not making a party political point; I am merely saying that the present Government had a real opportunity with this Bill.

Miss Widdecombe: Five Bills passed by Parliament gave the Government an opportunity to introduce these measures, but they did not take that opportunity. We must conclude that that is because the Bill that we are discussing is all about the prospective Labour candidate for Greenock and Inverclyde.

Mr. Gummer: It is true that such action should have been taken before, and that there were a number of opportunities for it to be taken. We know why this Bill has been introduced. I do not think any member or supporter of the Government could possibly claim that it is here for any other reason—but that, in a sense, makes my point even stronger.
I support the Government in opposing the amendment, but I do so with a heavy heart, because I think that they had an opportunity to rid us of a manifest inequity. I do not understand the logic of the Home Office in not even asking itself whether we should think about other issues. Is it not about time we ended the present circumstances in which Westminster Cathedral commits an illegal act every day when it rings the bell? Is that not unacceptable? Does the Minister realise that when the millennium peal rang out at midnight, every Catholic church was doing something illegal?

Mr. Hogg: I rather agree with my right hon. Friend about the removal of all disabilities from Catholics, and I am sorry that it has not happened. My wife and my children are Catholics. In the spirit of inquiry, however, may I ask him whether his views extend to the succession to the Crown?

The Second Deputy Chairman of Ways and Means (Mr. Michael Lord): Order. We are moving from bells to the succession. I think that it would be a very good idea if the right hon. Member for Suffolk, Coastal (Mr. Gummer) returned to the amendment under discussion.

Mr. Gummer: Mr. Lord, as my neighbour in Suffolk you have often come to my aid, but today you have given us a spectacular example of that. I thank you very much indeed.
My right hon. Friend the Member for Maidstone and The Weald has moved her amendment in a spirit of compromise, and of care to bring the two sides together. I think, however, that history is against her. The problem is that the two historical strands that have got us where we are do not admit of a compromise. We have to leave the Catholic Church, in its universal majesty, to make its own decisions and not to propose that this place has any right to shackle in any manner what the Holy Church does. Conversely, in the case of the Church over which, because of its establishment, we do claim some curious control, we have to say that there is no rational reason for clergymen not to stand for election to this place, nor, if they are elected, for this place to say that they may not sit here. That surely is the rational response.
For those reasons, I think that we should oppose amendment No. 14.

Mr. Hogg: I should like to begin with an apology—particularly to my right hon. Friend the Member for Maidstone and The Weald (Miss Widdecombe), as I did not hear her speech—for missing the earlier part of the debate. However, I know my right hon. Friend views, because I have occasionally had the opportunity to read them.
I shall be very brief because, apart from anything else, my right hon. Friend the Member for Suffolk, Coastal (Mr. Gummer) has said everything that could possibly be said on the subject, and a few additional words, too. I am a libertarian, and I ask myself four questions which I think deal with the matter pretty conclusively.
The first question that I ask myself is whether Members of Parliament are in fact capable of performing functions outside the House in some other capacity. I declare an interest: I am a practising barrister. I think that it is a very good thing for hon. Members to have external interests and to practise at them. My conclusion is that there is nothing about this place that prevents hon. Members from pursuing other activities as well. Indeed, I believe that it is a good thing that many do so, as it brings a wealth of experience and independence which I greatly welcome.

Mr. Gummer: Would my right hon. and learned Friend be kind enough to say that even more clearly? It is surely to the detriment of the House if hon. Members do not engage in business and other outside activities. If they do not, all they can bring to the House are their memories or their theories. Those with activities outside the House—I restate my interest—at least bring to it current knowledge of how the world outside works.

Mr. Hogg: I believe that very strongly. My right hon. Friend is right. He has described independence and independent-minded Members of Parliament. I believe that independence flows at least in part from having an existence and an experience outside this place, and also from having the resources to be able to say boo to the goose—by which I mean those from the Whips Offices who sit on the Front Benches.

Mr. Keith Simpson: I will remember that.

Mr. Hogg: My hon. Friend can remember it as much as he likes.

Mr. Bercow: For the avoidance of doubt, and to respond to the earlier observations of my hon. Friend the Member for New Forest, West (Mr. Swayne), will my right hon. and learned Friend confirm that, so far as this Bill is concerned, he sees no qualitative difference between the practice of a religious faith or responsibility and the practice of a profession or business arrangement?

Mr. Hogg: My hon. Friend's mind is as logical as my own, because that was my second point. Having asserted that I think it is a very good thing for hon. Members to have current interests outside this place, my next question is precisely the one that he has just asked: is there anything about the role of an ordained priest that causes

one to depart from the conclusion to which I have come in response to the first question? I think that the honest answer is no. I can see absolutely nothing qualitatively different about the role of a priest that makes it possible to distinguish it from, for example, that of a barrister, a practising doctor or a practising dentist—such as my hon. Friend the Member for Mole Valley (Sir P. Beresford). If I am wrong about that—being a modest man, I am always prepared to accept that I may be wrong—I believe that it would be a matter for the associations that adopt those people and for the electorate whose support they seek at the poll. That is my third point. Let us therefore have hon. Members in this place who have outside interests—which would surely apply to ordained priests. Nevertheless, if one is wrong about that, let the matter be for the associations and the electorate.
Finally, I find it quite impossible to distinguish between the reasons for disqualifying priests of the Catholic Church and the Church of England and those for not doing so in relation to the members of many other Churches, including the apostolic Churches identified by my right hon. Friend the Member for Suffolk, Coastal.
I am sorry to be robust with my right hon. Friend the Member for Maidstone and The Weald—

Miss Widdecombe: It would not be the first time, would it?

Mr. Hogg: No, it would not be the first time. I have disagreed with her on other occasions and about other matters.

Miss Widdecombe: Yes, yes.

Mr. Hogg: My right hon. Friend sounds resigned. I am afraid that, so far as I am concerned, she is going to have to be resigned. I have disagreed with her on various occasions when she has spoken, and this is another of those occasions. I really cannot even get into the lists in terms of understanding the arguments in favour of this group of amendments. I think that they are wholly and utterly wrong. I shall therefore take very considerable pleasure in opposing amendment No. 14.

Mr. Andrew Stunell: I should like first to apologise to the Committee for being absent for an earlier part of the debate. I notified Mr. Speaker and the Government and Opposition Front Benchers that I would miss it. I am sorry also to have missed what has evidently been a very lively debate. It has certainly been lively since my arrival.
I am very much with the right hon. Member for Suffolk, Coastal (Mr. Gummer) and very much against the right hon. Member for Maidstone and The Weald (Miss Widdecombe) on this group of amendments. As I made clear on Second Reading, I do not approach the issue as someone with a Catholic or Episcopalian background; I am a Baptist by profession of faith. As I have also made clear, I disagree with many of the very fine points of distinction that have been drawn between ministers and priests—on who does what, and on whether there is a major difference between the roles.
I believe in the priesthood of all believers and that belief is founded on the New Testament. On another day and in another place, I might argue that case in great


depth. However, if we were to accept New Testament teaching on the priesthood, the consequence would be that all of us who are practising Christians would be excluded from membership of this place. That fact perhaps demonstrates the folly of the current restrictions, which are a way of keeping good people out of the House. We should be worried about whether that is really in the long-term interests of democracy and of the House.
The restrictions not only keep some good people out, but are entirely arbitrary in their effect. I fear that amendment No. 14 would make the impact of the restrictions even more arbitrary and strange.
We already have a situation in which a priest or other clergy member of the Church in Wales may stand for Parliament and, if elected, sit in this place. A retired clergyman or clergywoman in the Church of England may stand for election to this place. If one is a defrocked Roman Catholic priest, one may stand, but, if one is a retired Catholic priest who has not gone to the trouble of getting defrocked, one cannot stand. If one is an orthodox priest or a retired orthodox priest, one cannot stand. If one is a rabbi or a Methodist minister, one can stand. The distinctions are meaningless, not just in secular law but in New Testament theology.
The sooner that we sweep away the remnants of religious discrimination in our democratic practice, the better. That is not specifically the Liberal Democrat line. I am sure that in my party we would find people who hold a different point of view, as on many other subjects[Interruption.] That may not surprise hon. Members, but I am happy to stand here in my own right to say clearly that it ought to be offensive to us in this day and age that religious discrimination is built into our legislation.
I take the point made by the right hon. Member for Suffolk, Coastal; perhaps we should have gone further. We certainly should have gone sooner. However, the fact that we should have gone sooner or further does not mean that we should now go nowhere. To that extent, the right hon. Member for Maidstone and The Weald is misdirecting her efforts, and so are those who support her case and her cause. We should be trying to eliminate religious discrimination, not entrench or refine it. To that purpose, I shall certainly vote against the amendment and support the Bill.

Mr. Mike O'Brien: The hon. Member for Hazel Grove (Mr. Stunell) said that the debate was lively. My instant reaction was that he was not talking about the debate that I had heard—but of course he was not; he was in a different debate.
The debate has been sensible, if lengthy. Sometimes it almost verged on being an argument about angels on a pinhead, but that might be appropriate in this case. The debate has none the less been good humoured, and certainly constructive. I extend my thanks particularly to my hon. Friends the Members for Thurrock (Mr. Mackinlay), for Mitcham and Morden (Siobhain McDonagh), for Enfield, North (Ms Ryan) and for Greenock and Inverclyde (Dr. Godman) for their contributions and for their support for the Government's position.
I found surprising—indeed, almost frightening—the extent to which I agreed not only with the right hon. Member for Suffolk, Coastal (Mr. Gummer), with whom

I have agreed on several issues, and even with the right hon. and learned Member for Sleaford and North Hykeham (Mr. Hogg), whose civil libertarian views I have some sympathy with on occasion, but—although I thought I would never say it—with the right hon. Member for Bromley and Chislehurst (Mr. Forth). Indeed, during part of the debate, I almost expected him to speak in favour of an inclusive, multi-faith, multicultural society. He did not quite do so, but in a very Tory way he almost advocated some form of political correctness.
I agree strongly with the right hon. Gentleman that the House should be open to as many people as possible, that it should be the choice of the electorate whom they send here and that it is not the job of the state to interfere with the internal organisation and practices of Churches. That is a Tory way of being politically correct, and I agree with him.
A number of points were raised with which I shall deal head on. Evidently, the Bill was introduced to address the case of David Cairns. I was open about that at the outset on Second Reading. Let me make it clear that that is the reason the Bill was introduced. It was patently obvious to us that an injustice would be done if David Cairns was prevented from taking the seat that the electorate might put him in a position to take after the election. It would have been wrong to allow that situation.
There are many demands on parliamentary time, all the time. Arguably, the right hon. Member for Suffolk, Coastal raised several points with which Parliament might like to deal. There are many other issues, too. I have been trying to secure the introduction of a fire safety Bill for a couple of years. There is always a premium on parliamentary time. However, a patent injustice was about to be done with which the Government felt it appropriate to deal. Other issues may well have to be dealt with at some point; that remains to be seen.

Mr. Gummer: rose—

Mr. Hogg: rose—

Mr. Bercow: rose—

Mr. O'Brien: I shall give way to the right hon. Member for Suffolk, Coastal, then to the right hon. and learned Member for Sleaford and North Hykeham and then to the hon. Member for Buckingham (Mr. Bercow), and then I shall make some progress.

Mr. Gummer: Does not the Minister agree that although it would have been inappropriate for him to have included in the Bill a series of clauses about fire safety, it would not have been inappropriate for him to have included a series of clauses that removed all disqualifications on Her Majesty's Roman Catholic subjects? That is the gravamen of the attack. He could have done so without the need for any extra parliamentary time. The fact that he did not do so is at least a disappointment and at most a serious wrong.

4 pm

Mr. O'Brien: I have much sympathy with the principle that the right hon. Gentleman is advocating, but I do not assent to the practical effects of introducing a Bill to


remove some of the distinctions. The bells, oh the bells! I can imagine the debate about whether people wanted more bells to ring or whether the muezzin should have rights to call the faithful to prayer, and to what extent we should allow that through loudspeakers. With his experience of Parliament, I am sure that the right hon. Gentleman can imagine that, too. So, I do not accept that introducing such a Bill would have been easy. We wanted a focused Bill, and that is what we have got. A particular case exposed the particular principle involved.

Mr. Hogg: The hon. Gentleman has spoken of the injustice to Mr. Cairns—just as there would be injustice to Mr. Cairn's association and electorate—and I agree, but would not the problem go further? Would not it probably breach Mr. Cairns's convention rights if he were prevented from standing? Would not it be difficult for the Home Secretary to make a declaration of compatibility on the Bill if the amendment were accepted?

Mr. O'Brien: I shall tread with a little caution. The right hon. and learned Gentleman rightly asks me to express a view on whether the amendment might cause us to breach the European convention on human rights.

Mr. Forth: Who cares?

Mr. O'Brien: It is the law of the land, and it is right that we take due account of it. I want to reflect on the matter. I suspect that we might get very close to an infringement. Indeed, I suspect that if we had not introduced such legislation as this Bill, we might well have found ourselves challenged in the Court under the convention on the Cairns or some other case. That was not particularly why we introduced the Bill, but the right hon. and learned Gentleman makes a good point.

Mr. Bercow: I hope that my right hon. and learned Friend the Member for Sleaford and North Hykeham (Mr. Hogg) will not spoil the argument, because I for one—I suspect that I will be joined by colleagues in this observation—could not give a tinker's cuss about the view on the European convention on human rights. I am motivated by different factors in my support for the Bill and in my opposition to the amendment.
I in no way dissent from what the Minister has said, but will he nevertheless confirm that one effect of the amendment tabled by my right hon. Friend the shadow Home Secretary would have been to enable Monsignor Bruce Kent, had he been elected, to take his seat in 1992 to represent the people of Oxford, West and Abingdon? If the Minister accepts that that correct—I believe it is—why did no Labour Member propose such a measure in the run-up to that election? Was it on account of the fact that Labour knew that Father Bruce had not the slightest prospect of being elected or was it because it did not wish him to be? Which is it?

Mr. O'Brien: I am not aware of any discussions that went on before 1992. 1 was not in this House, and neither was the hon. Gentleman. Therefore neither he nor I were in a position to bring forward such a Bill as this. When the case of David Cairns was brought to my attention, I thought that justice needed to be done, and I think that in due course the House will do justice to David Cairns.
Let me explain why this issue was not dealt with in a Bill introduced earlier in the Session: we wanted to consult the Churches, and that consultation has now been completed. [Interruption.] I am being interrupted by the right hon. Member for Maidstone and The Weald (Miss Widdecombe) who, from a sedentary position, and in her usual vociferous style, is waving her five fingers in the air and saying that there could have been five Bills. We could not have included this measure in five Bills in the period following the consultation. That was not the case. There were two possibilities, but the consultation period on this measure had not been completed in time to include it in those Bills. The short title of the Bills would not have enabled us to include this issue. None the less, short titles can be dealt with. However, by the time the issue was before the House and the consultation had been completed, it was not possible to include it in those Bills.

Dr. Godman: I disappeared from the Chamber for a minute because I dashed to the Library to obtain a copy of Cardinal Thomas Winning's letter, which was part of the consultation. Cardinal Winning says in his letter, inter alia:
I would not be in favour of any priest being elected to the House of Commons. That, however, would be because of Canon Law and not because of what can be seen as discrimination in the civil law of our country.
That is the anomaly that I had in mind.
In his letter of 4 February last year, Cardinal Winning asked whether the restrictions would be lifted on "clergy"—that is, on bishops, priests and deacons, or simply on priests alone? Has that question been answered?

Mr. O'Brien: All the restrictions on bishops other than bishops of the Church of England who are Members of another place would be lifted. Therefore, any restrictions on deacons or anyone else would be lifted. The only people who would, as a result of their ecclesiastical background, continue to be excluded from this place would be those who were actually Members of another place and therefore had a voice in the legislative process.
The key principle is whether we should exclude certain citizens from participating in the legislative process. The right hon. Member for Bromley and Chislehurst read out the list of those who were excluded. As the right hon. Member for Suffolk, Coastal pointed out, many of those are in receipt of some funding via the Crown and there are therefore reasons for excluding them. However, that does not include the sort of people we are now discussing, who are priests or ministers in various ways of particular religions.
Amendment No. 13 would limit the meaning of ordination as relating to ordination as either a priest or deacon. It would echo similar words used in the House of Commons (Clergy Disqualification) Act 1801. We consider that the additional words are unnecessary, although their effect would not be inaccurate in terms of the purpose of the clause. Parliament has not thought it necessary to retain that gloss on the meaning of the word "ordination" in the more recent legislation that refers to disqualification on grounds of ordination—that is, the 1998 devolution enactments and the European Assembly Elections Act 1978. We are trying to place election to this House broadly on all fours with the sort of provisions that relate to the devolved Parliament and Assemblies and also the European Parliament.
I am grateful to the right hon. Member for Bromley and Chislehurst for explaining the purpose of amendment No. 12. Our view is that the amendment is unnecessary. The meaning of "minister" does not need broadening. Those affected by the disqualifications in the 1801 Act and the Roman Catholic Relief Act 1829 are sufficiently identified in clause 1(1)—that is, persons who have been ordained or are a minister of any religious denomination. The addition of "or the recognised equivalent" would provoke doubts as to the sufficiency of the phrase referred to in clause 1(1), which appears in the 1998 devolution enactments for Scotland, Wales and Northern Ireland and in the European Assembly Elections Act 1978. Accepting the amendment would therefore necessitate making similar amendments to those pieces of legislation.
The proposed words would also run the risk of being construed in a way that was restrictive. It is to do with the way in which the legal interpretation rules apply. If an additional phrase is added to a list, it may well restrict the breadth of the interpretation of those words. That could result in the amendment having precisely the opposite effect to the one intended by the right hon. Gentleman. In addition, including this wording could mean that we had to add it to the other relevant pieces of legislation. Accepting the amendment could cause problems.
For the purposes of Pepper v. Hart, the Government intend the Bill to receive the broadest possible interpretation and to cover the sort of circumstances about which the right hon. Gentleman is concerned. He and I agree on that issue, although I am not able to accept his amendment.
On amendment No. 15, I recognise that the right hon. Member for Maidstone and The Weald has strong reservations about the possibility of ordained clergy sitting in this House if they are also practising as priests. She mentioned this on Second Reading, and I recognise her concerns. She and I are of the same religious background, and I have some sympathy with the ecclesiastical idea—the religious idea—that priests have a full-time job and should not do another one. A number of arguments were presented most eloquently by the right hon. Member for Suffolk, Coastal about worker priests and other circumstances. However, the key argument was put forward by Members on both sides of the House—it is not the job of this Parliament to tell the Catholic Church what rules to follow and how its priests should carry on their work. It is Parliament's job to open to people the right to elect those whom they wish to elect.
The Catholic Church is not an established Church. The established Church may well have particular rules that apply. It is my view that election to this House and, indeed, to the devolved Assemblies and Parliament and to the European Parliament should be open to as many as possible, without artificial and unnecessary restrictions.
The Select Committee on Home Affairs looked at the issue in 1998 and recommended the removal of all restrictions on ministers of religion standing for and serving as Members of Parliament. It commented:
these restrictions seem to us to be out of place in modern times. There should be no restriction on ministers of religion becoming Members of Parliament, and certainly no distinction between those of different faiths or of different Christian traditions. Whether such persons should serve as an elected representative should be a matter for the rules or customs of their own faiths or churches and for the electorate, and need not be restricted by law.

The Government share that view.
Secondly, we consulted the Church of England, the Church of Ireland, the Church of Scotland and the Roman Catholic Churches in England and Wales, Scotland and Ireland. All were content for the restrictions to be removed. Representatives from the Roman Catholic Church pointed out that it would not affect them, because canon law would prevent serving priests from sitting in this place. The right hon. and learned Member for Sleaford and North Hykeham referred, quite rightly, to the Church in Wales. The Church in Wales was disestablished in 1912—[Interruption.] I am corrected—it was 1914. The effect is that its ministers are able to stand for election to this House. If I remember rightly, back in 1979 Rev. Bill Morgan was a member of the Church in Wales and was able to stand at Worcester, in England, without restriction.

Mr. Gummer: If the amendment were carried, ministers of the Church in Wales would, for the first time, not be able to stand for Parliament, because they are episcopally ordained. If they were in full-time ministry, they would be excluded.

Mr. O'Brien: I fear that the right hon. Gentleman may be right. I look to see whether the right hon. Member for Maidstone and The Weald agrees with that; it appears that she does. I find that even more worrying. The arguments advanced by my hon. Friends the Members for Thurrock and for Greenock and Inverclyde and by others on both sides totally demolished the points made by the right hon. Lady. I hope that she will feel able to withdraw her amendment, although I hear her saying that she intends to press it to a Division. That is her right, and many hon. Members will wish to express their strong views in opposing her. Her amendment is wrong in principle and would put the House in the position of interfering—wrongly—in the internal operations of Churches that have a right to make their own rules. It should not be for us to interfere with them.

Miss Widdecombe: I do not intend to withdraw the amendment. Members on the Government Benches are not being allowed a free vote, which is wholly inappropriate for a decision of this sort. They are being whipped to vote by the Government. I urge those who are free, who do not approve of what the Government are doing and who seek a workable compromise to support my amendment.

The Committee divided: Ayes 17, Noes 264.

Division No. 139]
[4.13 pm


AYES


Amess, David
Mawhinney, Rt Hon Sir Brian


Brooke, Rt Hon Peter
Robinson, Peter (Belfast E)


Bruce, Ian (S Dorset)
Syms, Robert


Chapman, Sir Sydney (Chipping Barnet)
Viggers, Peter



Wells, Bowen


Davies, Quentin (Grantham)
Widdecombe, Rt Hon Miss Ann


Duncan Smith, Iain
Wilkinson, John


Fallon, Michael



Heald, Oliver
Tellers for the Ayes:


Howarth, Gerald (Aldershot)
Mr. Eric Forth and


McIntosh, Miss Anne
Mr. Desmond Swayne.







NOES


Adams, Mrs Irene (Paisley N)
Dobbin, Jim


Ainger, Nick
Dobson, Rt Hon Frank


Allan, Richard
Dowd, Jim


Atkins, Charlotte
Drown, Ms Julia


Austin, John
Eagle, Maria (L'pool Garston)


Bailey, Adrian
Edwards, Huw


Ballard, Jackie
Efford, Clive


Barnes, Harry
Ennis, Jeff


Beard, Nigel
Etherington, Bill



Beith, Rt Hon A J
Field, Rt Hon Frank


Bell, Stuart (Middlesbrough)
Fisher, Mark


Benn, Hilary (Leeds C)
Fitzpatrick, Jim


Benn, Rt Hon Tony (Chesterfield)
Foster, Don (Bath)


Benton, Joe
Foulkes, George


Bercow, John
Galloway, George



Best, Harold
Gapes, Mike


Blears, Ms Hazel
George, Andrew (St Ives)


Blunt, Crispin
George, Rt Hon Bruce (Walsall S)


Bottomley, Peter (Worthing W)
Gerrard, Neil



Bradley, Keith (Withington)
Gidley, Sandra


Bradley, Peter (The Wrekin)
Godman, Dr Norman A


Bradshaw, Ben
Godsiff, Roger



Brand, Dr Peter
Goggins, Paul


Brinton, Mrs Helen
Golding, Mrs Llin


Browne, Desmond
Gordon, Mrs Eileen


Bruce, Malcolm (Gordon)
Griffiths, Jane (Reading E)



Buck, Ms Karen
Griffiths, Nigel (Edinburgh S)


Burden, Richard
Griffiths, Win (Bridgend)


Burns, Simon
Gummer, Rt Hon John


Campbell, Mrs Anne (C'bridge)
Hall, Patrick (Bedford)


Campbell, Rt Hon Menzies (NE Fife)
Hancock, Mike



Healey, John


Cann, Jamie
Henderson, Doug (Newcastle N)


Caplin, Ivor
Henderson, Ivan (Harwich)


Casale, Roger
Hendrick, Mark


Caton, Martin
Hepburn, Stephen


Cawsey, Ian
Heppell, John


Chapman, Ben (Wirral S)
Hill, Keith


Chaytor, David
Hinchliffe, David


Clark, Rt Hon Dr David (S Shields)

Hodge, Ms Margaret


Clark, Dr Lynda (Edinburgh Pentlands)
Hogg, Rt Hon Douglas



Hood, Jimmy


Clark, Paul (Gillingham)
Hope, Phil


Clarke, Charles (Norwich S)
Hopkins, Kelvin


Clarke, Eric (Midlothian)
Howarth, George (Knowsley N)


Clarke, Rt Hon Tom (Coatbridge)
Hoyle, Lindsay


Clarke, Tony (Northampton S)
Hughes, Ms Beverley (Stretford)


Clelland, David
Humble, Mrs Joan


Coaker, Vernon
Hutton, John


Coffey, Ms Ann
Iddon, Dr Brian


Cohen, Harry
Jackson, Ms Glenda (Hampstead)


Coleman, Iain
Jenkin, Bernard


Colman, Tony
Johnson, Miss Melanie (Welwyn Hatfield)


Cook, Frank (Stockton N)



Cooper, Yvette
Jones, Rt Hon Barry (Alyn)


Corbyn, Jeremy
Jones, Helen (Warrington N)


Cotter, Brian
Jones, Dr Lynne (Selly Oak)


Cox, Tom
Jones, Martyn (Clwyd S)


Crausby, David
Joyce, Eric


Cryer, Mrs Ann (Keighley)
Kaufman, Rt Hon Gerald


Cryer, John (Hornchurch)
Keeble, Ms Sally


Cummings, John
Keen, Alan (Feltham & Heston)


Cunningham, Rt Hon Dr Jack (Copeland)
Keen, Ann (Brentford & Isleworth)



Kemp, Fraser


Cunningham, Jim (Cov'try S)
Kennedy, Jane (Wavertree)


Curtis-Thomas, Mrs Claire

Khabra, Fiara S


Dalyell, Tam
Kidney, David


Darling, Rt Hon Alistair
Ladyman, Dr Stephen


Davey, Edward (Kingston)
Laxton, Bob


Davey, Valerie (Bristol W)
Lepper, David


Davidson, Ian
Levitt, Tom


Davies, Geraint (Croydon C)
Lewis, Ivan (Bury S)


Davis, Rt Hon Terry (B'ham Hodge H)
Lewis, Dr Julian (New Forest E)



Lilley, Rt Hon Peter


Dismore, Andrew
Linton, Martin





Lloyd, Tony (Manchester C)
Quinn, Lawrie


Llwyd, Elfyn
Rammell, Bill


Lock, David
Raynsford, Nick



Love, Andrew
Robertson, John (Glasgow Anniesland)


McAvoy, Thomas



McCafferty, Ms Chris
Roche, Mrs Barbara


McCartney, Rt Hon Ian (Makerfield)
Rooney, Terry




Roy, Frank


McDonagh, Siobhain
Ruane, Chris


McDonnell, John
Ruddock, Joan


McGuire, Mrs Anne
Russell, Bob (Colchester)


McIsaac, Shona
Ryan, Ms Joan


MacKay, Rt Hon Andrew
Sarwar, Mohammad


McKenna, Mrs Rosemary
Sawford, Phil


Mackinlay, Andrew
Sedgemore, Brian


McNulty, Tony
Sheerman, Barry


Mactaggart, Fiona
Sheldon, Rt Hon Robert


McWalter, Tony
Shipley, Ms Debra


Mahon, Mrs Alice
Simpson, Alan (Nottingham S)


Mallaber, Judy
Skinner, Dennis


Mandelson, Rt Hon Peter
Smith, Rt Hon Andrew (Oxford E)



Marsden, Gordon (Blackpool S)
Smith, Miss Geraldine (Morecambe & Lunesdale)


Marshall, David (Shettleston)



Marshall-Andrews, Robert
Smith, John (Glamorgan)



Maxton, John
Soley, Clive


Meale, Alan
Southworth, Ms Helen


Michie, Bill (Shef'ld Heeley)
Spellar, John


Milburn, Rt Hon Alan
Squire, Ms Rachel


Miller, Andrew
Starkey, Dr Phyllis


Mitchell, Austin
Strang, Rt Hon Dr Gavin



Moffatt, Laura
Stringer, Graham




Moonie, Dr Lewis
Stuart, Ms Gisela


Moore, Michael
Stunell, Andrew


Morgan, Alasdair (Galloway)
Sutcliffe, Gerry


Morgan, Ms Julie (Cardiff N)
Taylor, David (NW Leics)


Morley, Elliot
Temple-Morris, Peter


Morris, Rt Hon Ms Estelle (B'ham Yardley)
Thomas, Gareth R (Harrow W)



Timms, Stephen


Morris, Rt Hon Sir John (Aberavon)
Tipping, Paddy



Trickett, Jon


Mowlam, Rt Hon Marjorie
Turner, Dr Desmond (Kemptown)


Mullin, Chris
Turner, Neil (Wigan)


Murphy, Denis (Wansbeck)
Twigg, Derek (Halton)


Murphy, Jim (Eastwood)
Tynan, Bill


Naysmith, Dr Doug
Vis, Dr Rudi


O'Brien, Mike (N Warks)
Walley, Ms Joan


O'Hara, Eddie
Ward, Ms Claire


O'Neill, Martin
Wareing, Robert N



Öpik, Lembit

Watts, David


Osborne, Ms Sandra
White, Brian


Palmer, Dr Nick
Whitehead, Dr Alan


Pearson, Ian
Wicks, Malcolm



Pendry, Rt Hon Tom
Williams, Mrs Betty (Conwy)


Perham, Ms Linda
Willis, Phil


Pickthall, Colin
Winnick, David


Plaskitt, James
Woodward, Shaun


Pollard, Kerry
Woolas, Phil


Pond, Chris
Worthington, Tony


Pope, Greg
Wright, Anthony D (Gt Yarmouth)


Pound, Stephen
Wright, Tony (Cannock)


Prentice, Ms Bridget (Lewisham E)



Prentice, Gordon (Pendle)
Tellers for the Noes:



Primarolo, Dawn
Mr. Mike Hall and


Quin, Rt Hon Ms Joyce
Mr. Clive Belts.

Question accordingly negatived.

Mr. Fallon: I beg to move amendment No. 4 in page 1, line 9, at end insert—
'or Bishop of the Church of England'.

The Second Deputy Chairman: With this it will be convenient to discuss the following: Amendment (a) to the proposed amendment, in line 1, after first 'of, insert 'a see in'.
Amendment No. 6, in schedule 1, page 2, line 8, at end insert—
'or Bishop of the Church of England'.
Amendment (a) to the proposed amendment, in line 1, after first 'of, insert 'a see in'.
Amendment No. 7, in page 2, line 13, at end insert—
'or Bishop of the Church of England'.
Amendment (a) to the proposed amendment, in line 1, after first 'of', insert 'a see in'.
Amendment No. 8, in page 2, line 18, at end insert—
'or Bishop of the Church of England'.
Amendment (a) to the proposed amendment, in line 1, after first 'of, insert 'a see in'.
Amendment No. 9, in page 2, line 23, at end insert—
'or Bishop of the Church of England'.
Amendment (a) to the proposed amendment, in line 1, after first 'of insert 'a see in'.
Amendment No. 10, in schedule 1, page 2, line 28, at end insert—
'or Bishop of the Church of England'.
Amendment (a) to the proposed amendment, in line 1, after first 'of', insert 'a see in'.

Mr. Fallon: It is an extraordinary side effect of this Bill to enable David Cairns properly to contest his seat in Scotland that the Government should now propose that any bishop should be able to become a Member of this House. That is an enormous change, and something that certainly requires further consideration.
The Minister has prayed in aid of the change that he has recommended today the Home Affairs Committee report, but that same Select Committee report was careful to exclude not simply the senior diocesan bishops but all serving bishops from the change that is proposed. Indeed, the change was not recommended by Professor Blackburn, on whose paper the Committee relied. The House would be making a serious mistake if it allowed bishops to become Members of Parliament.
Of course, we are not simply talking of those senior diocesan bishops who are already represented in the House of Lords. Another 16—we may call them junior diocesan bishops—may well in the fullness of time move through to the House of Lords. Two other bishops may not—the Bishop of Sodor and Man and the Bishop of Europe. There are many suffragan bishops; there are also honorary assistant bishops. We would need to think carefully about suddenly allowing bishops to become Members of this House.
It seems to me that there would immediately be a recipe for a conflict of loyalty. Under the Bill, a diocesan bishop could be, say, a Labour Member of Parliament, and his suffragan bishop could be a Conservative Member of Parliament. We would have not only a conflict of loyalties between their duties to their Church and to their Parliament but a conflict of loyalties between bishops within the same diocese. If a junior diocesan bishop were elected to this House and a month later a senior diocesan bishop happened to retire, as the Bishop of Chichester has just done, and if the junior bishop was next in line of seniority to move through, he would have to cease being

a Member of this House, even though he had been elected by his constituents, and proceed up the Corridor to the other place.
It is technically possible under the Bill for a senior diocesan bishop to retire and stand for election to the House of Commons all over again. It gives a new meaning to the phrase "flying bishops"; we could have bishops flying up and down the Corridor. I know that Lords Home and Hailsham sat in both Houses twice. but the House ought to think carefully before having bishops here, in the other place, and then back here. Why should a constituency that has elected a bishop to serve it here in Parliament suddenly face a by-election because that bishop becomes senior enough to proceed through to the House of Lords? That would inflict a wholly unnecessary by-election on that constituency simply as a result of the rotation of diocesan bishops.

Mr. Hogg: I remind my hon. Friend that there is a precedent for that difficulty. In a previous incarnation, the right hon. Member for Chesterfield (Mr. Benn) exposed his constituency to a by-election. Indeed, under the old regime, any eldest son of a peer who was elected to the House of Commons and then saw his father die would cause a by-election. We have been here many times before, and the House thought that the situation was wrong in that case. It is wrong to advance the argument now.

Mr. Fallon: I take it from that intervention that my right hon. and learned Friend agrees with me. Under the Bill, we are putting the House in a position that, as he points out, was corrected in the case of hereditary peers. That is what the Government will do. It will be possible for bishops to become MPs, to move through to the House of Lords and then to come back to this place. That puts the House and the constituencies that would be involved in an absurd position—simply because of the drafting of the measure.
Those anomalies might arise if we allow bishops to become MPs. There are also two substantive arguments against bishops becoming Members of Parliament. First, they obviously already have their own place in the legislature; they have reserved seats and special arrangements in the otter place—the only group to do so. The House of Bishops is collectively represented. I do not wholly agree with my right hon. Friend the Member for Maidstone and The Weald (Miss Widdecombe), who referred earlier to the fact that some bishops were in the other place while others were not. The House is collectively representative, so because of the rotation principle, all the bishops would have the opportunity to sit there in the fullness of time. It is not right that they should also have an entitlement to sit in this place.

Mr. Bercow: I presume that my hon. Friend wants his amendment to receive a response from the Under-Secretary of State for the Home Department. Does he agree that that might he difficult as the hon. Gentleman is not at present in the Committee? Is it the intention of the Parliamentary Secretary, Privy Council Office, who is sitting on the Treasury Bench, to respond?

Mr. Fallon: I shall have to leave that matter to Members on the Treasury Bench to sort out among


themselves. Perhaps the Parliamentary Secretary, Privy Council Office is present in order to answer my second substantive argument, which I was about to develop.

The Parliamentary Secretary, Privy Council Office (Mr. Paddy Tipping): We shall ensure that the hon. Gentleman receives an adequate reply to his important amendment.

Mr. Fallon: I am grateful to the hon. Gentleman for that assurance, from which I assume that it does not matter which Minister responds.
My first substantive argument is that the bishops of the Church of England are collectively represented in the other place in any event; they thus do not need the additional facility of seats in the House of Commons.

Mr. Stunell: Is it the hon. Gentleman's view that those hereditary peers who were unsuccessful in the ballot for places in the Lords should also be disqualified on the grounds that they have representatives in the other place?

Mr. Fallon: I was coming to that point; it relates to my second substantive argument, and offers a good illustration of the mess the Government have got themselves into. We cannot admit bishops to this place without also considering the effect on the composition of the other place—the problem to which the hon. Gentleman draws our attention.
The Wakeham commission includes recommendations on those senior diocesan bishops. The report recommends that their number should be reduced from 21 to 16 and that five seats should be made available for members of other denominations. It also recommends that the principle of rotation and seniority be ended and that, somehow, the new Appointments Commission should be able to select the membership of the bishops' Bench by the process of "ecumenical instrument"; to be organised by a group known as CTE—Churches Together in England.
I am a little hazy on that point; I do not understand what is wrong with the principle of rotation and seniority. However, perhaps we should leave that aside.
The measure is a recipe for conflict. If there were bishops in this place and bishops in the other place, and if suffragan bishops and their senior bishops from the same diocese represented different parties in this place, that would seem muddled.
It may be that there is an agenda behind this sudden change. Perhaps the Government really want to drive bishops out of the House of Lords altogether. If we let the measure through, the Government could say, in a few years, that we need not have bishops in the House of Lords at all because they are entitled to stand for the House of Commons. Perhaps that secret agenda is at work in this measure.
If I were involved in the higher reaches of the Church, I should be extremely worried about that point—not only might the number of bishops be diminished, but there is a threat to their position altogether. Once we have bishops as MPs, someone is bound to ask why we should also have bishops with reserved places in the House of Lords. That is inconsistent.
The measure is muddled; there will be an important side effect that has nothing to do with David Cairns. That matter should have been considered much more

carefully—perhaps by a Speaker's Conference, but certainly as part of the more general implementation of stage 2 reform of the House of Lords. I urge the Committee to accept the amendment.

Mr. Gummer: I often agree with my hon. Friend the Member for Sevenoaks (Mr. Fallon), but the picture he paints is unlikely. The idea that, all over the country, hordes of bishops are rushing out to get themselves elected seems to be, ab initio, unlikely. The idea that both the diocesan bishop and his suffragan would be elected to this place for different parties at the same time seems so unlikely as not to be worthy of consideration. It is possible that a bishop might be elected to the House of Commons, but even that is extremely unlikely.
The point at issue is different from that under discussion in the previous amendment; this amendment deals only with the established Church. I disagree with my hon. Friend for the simple reason that, for the most part, the bishops to whom we are referring are not able to be Members of the House of Lords. A suffragan bishop may not sit in the House of Lords; an assistant bishop may not sit in the House of Lords. Associate bishops or bishops from abroad may not sit in the House of Lords. The only people to whom my hon. Friend's argument applies are those diocesan bishops who are not rotationally able to sit in the House of Lords at present.
I am not a betting man, but I am prepared to take a large bet that none of those bishops would stand for election to this place in any circumstances—for two good reasons. The first is the rotational system itself. The second is that one cannot conceive of a diocesan bishop who would think it possible both to hold that office and to be a party political Member of this place—because that is what it would mean. The situation would not arise.
We are really talking about the other bishops. Surely it would be odd to remove the inability of clergymen of the Church of England and priests of the Roman Catholic Church to stand for election to this place, while saying that clergymen who are bishops of a different sort—associate bishops, suffragan bishops and the like—should not be able to stand. It is not that I think that any of them would stand, but that there is no logic for excluding them. It would be logical for the Church of England to do so, but not for Parliament to take that step.
In this situation, we are much better guided by history. In the past, the word "bishop" referred only to diocesan bishops; the Church of England did not go in for suffragan and assistant bishops. We are treading new ground. Change has taken place in the Church of England since the legislation that we are dealing with became extant. There is thus no historical reason why we should not take this step.
I do not believe that the procedure will take place. Even if it were to do so, my hon. Friend's concern about bishops flying up and down the Corridor is unlikely to come about. After all, there is a perfect answer: the people who elected them would know of the possibility and would take it into account. It is not for us to say that that is not possible and proper. Even if they elected them and the occasion arose, it would be possible for the bishop to refuse the preferment.
The amendment makes a meal out of something that is not really worth a bite. We can perfectly properly leave the matter; it will not, in fact, make a ha'p'orth of


difference. If I were to vote for the amendment and it were passed, that would not make a ha'p'orth of difference either. However, it happens to be a bit more logical to carry the argument through as the Bill now stands. I suggest that the House can do so without any fear at all that we shall be under the jurisdiction of a horde of bishops, whether vagantes or not. The fact is that they will not come; we will not have them here, so either agreeing to the amendment or not is, frankly, immaterial—but it is a matter of rationality, and I prefer to be on the side of reason.

Mr. Stunell: For the second time today, rather worryingly, I find myself in almost complete agreement with the right hon. Member for Suffolk, Coastal (Mr. Gummer).

Mr. Bercow: Savour it.

Mr. Stunell: Yes, I will; it may not happen again. I struggled to comprehend the argument adduced by the hon. Member for Sevenoaks (Mr. Fallon). If I understood him properly, he was saying that we should not pass the Bill in its current form because the bishops already have representatives in the House of Lords who can speak for them. However, as I tried to suggest in my intervention, it is also the case that hereditary peers who were unsuccessful in the election have exactly that kind of representation. Of course it is arguable that that applies to other people who sit there in some sort of representative mode. No special reason exists to use the representative role of those bishops who sit in the Lords to disqualify those who do not sit there.
The second argument was that by-elections could be caused. If a by-election were foreseeable, that would perhaps be a reason for not having certain categories of candidate. I wondered whether we should also introduce a rule to prevent people who have a series illness from standing for Parliament. Should we have health checks? To be honest, by-elections are much more often caused by death than by preferment, so they might best be avoided by having rigorous medical checks to weed out those who are not up to the next four or five years. In all conscience, I think that the by-election argument is not sustainable; it is only adduced as an argument to prop up the weakness of other arguments.
Another argument is that there is a see-saw case and people may appear in one House and then the other. We may like to think that the right direction for traffic is from this House to the other place, but in all conscience, why should not there be a route back from that House to this place? If a retirement age were introduced, or if other factors came into play, what on earth would be wrong with that?
The third argument seemed to be that there might be a conflict between bishops if they finished up in this House, but on different sides. As hon. Members will know from my previous contribution, I am not a member of the Church of England. I do not take detailed account of what goes on in the Synod, but I was under the impression that its members were on opposite sides already. The idea that we would somehow avoid conflict by keeping them out of the House seems misplaced.
The fourth argument was perhaps the most feeble of all. It was suggested that if the Bill were passed, it would be bad for bishops because it would sound the death knell of bishops in the other place if they were allowed to sit in this House. That is a self-serving argument. Allowing politicians from that place into this place certainly has not sounded their death knell, so there is no particular reason why allowing bishops into this place should sound their death knell either.
In fact, it would suit hon. Members best if we had the smallest possible constituency of people who were allowed to be elected to the House. Ideally, we would restrict entry to those who have already been elected, but we widen it a little. There is always a tendency for us to consider restrictions on those who can be elected not solely in terms of the benefit to democracy, but perhaps at the back of our minds, subconsciously, seeing benefit to ourselves.
I argue strongly that the amendment is wholly mistaken in its purpose and will not achieve what the hon. Member for Sevenoaks seeks. I hope that it will fall.

Mr. Bercow: My hon. Friend the Member for Sevenoaks (Mr. Fallon) is perfectly capable of defending and promoting the amendment, but I hope that the hon. Gentleman is not seriously suggesting that my hon. Friend seeks to restrict the opportunities for people to stand for election to the House of Commons because he is personally fearful of priestly competition.

Mr. Stunell: I am properly drawn up by the hon. Gentleman—there is a tendency slightly to overstate one's case. I do not envisage that bishops will be clamouring to stand at the forthcoming election for the constituency of Sevenoaks. I may have missed something, but so far as I know, the Archbishop of Canterbury does not have an eye on Sevenoaks, or on Buckingham. I am happy to confirm that no such suggestion was intended. I hope that the House will very quickly dispose of this unnecessary amendment, which NA would have poor outcomes were it to be passed.

Mr. Hogg: I should like to make a quick contribution to what I hope is the rapid disposal and dispatch of the amendment. I do not agree with it. I have already argued in general terms why I am in favour of freedom. All that I said in the debate on the first group of amendments applies to this group. I believe in choice and freedom; they are traditional Conservative values, and I shall do nothing to depart from them. I approach this group of amendments from that general position.
My hon. Friend the Member for Sevenoaks (Mr. Fallon) has adduced four arguments. They are all misplaced. He first talked about a conflict of loyalty between the bishops and their suffragans, or between the bishops and their Churches. That may be so; there may be a conflict of loyalties. Many Members have various conflicts of loyalties, and it is ultimately a matter for the person who puts himself or herself forward for election to resolve. It is a matter for the associations to address and, ultimately, it is for the electorates to decide. It is not for us to be prescriptive. Yes, there may be conflicts of loyalty, but they are no greater and no less than the conflicts of loyalty that already face many Members.
The second point was the suggestion that by-elections may be caused by the death or retirement of a Lord Spiritual and his replacement in another place by an elected bishop. My right hon. Friend the Member for Suffolk, Coastal (Mr. Gummer) expressed his views on that point, and I agree with him.
In any event, what is the problem? As I said in an intervention on my hon. Friend the Member for Sevenoaks—I do not think that he quite followed the point—we have been here many times before. In the past, the eldest sons of peers have triggered by-elections on the death of their fathers. That happened in the case of the right hon. Member for Chesterfield (Mr. Benn) and in the case of my right hon. and noble Friend, my father, when he succeeded my grandfather and had to vacate his seat at Oxford. Constituency associations selected the right hon. Member for Chesterfield and my father to stand for Parliament and the electorate voted them in at a general election. It is therefore an issue for the associations and the electorate and not something about which we should be prescriptive.
The hon. Member for Hazel Grove (Mr. Stunell) made a perfectly sound point when he said that, if we were to extend the provision so that the possibility of causing a by-election would lead to someone's disqualification, we would almost, by definition, have to exclude the elderly and the very elderly. I shall not say into which category my right hon. Friend the Member for Old Bexley and Sidcup (Sir E. Heath) falls, but I am entitled to say that the House would have been the poorer without his presence. I am very glad that his association and the electorate returned him over many years, and he has now served for 51 years in the House. That same point applied to Sir Winston Churchill. We must not make the possibility of a by-election become a barrier to someone's being adopted or selected as a candidate.
My hon. Friend the Member for Sevenoaks said that the proposal might push forward the secret agenda that the Lords Spiritual should no longer sit in the other place. I wish to make a couple of observations about that. If it were left to me, I would not have Lords Spiritual in the other place. I would have an entirely elected second Chamber, and I suspect that we are moving towards one that has a very large elected element. I would be surprised if the Lords Spiritual ultimately retain their seats. As I am pressing for a second Chamber that is either largely or wholly elected, I would support their disappearance. There is nothing personal about it; I believe in a powerful second Chamber and that means an elected one.
I make it clear to my hon. Friend that there is no secret agenda; it is public and overt. I want an elected Second Chamber. If this provision makes a small contribution to that, it is another reason for opposing my hon. Friend's amendment. I hope that we shall have no more of this nonsense.

Mr. Mike O'Brien: We have had a good debate on the amendment. On the point raised by the hon. Member for Sevenoaks (Mr. Fallon), as the right hon. and learned Member for Sleaford and North Hykeham (Mr. Hogg) made clear, elections to Parliament have been an issue on many occasions in the past. The right hon. and learned Gentleman referred to two examples, one of which was obviously close to him because it concerned his father. From time to time, people have been sent from this House

to the other place and a by-election has been necessary. We do not take the view that particular restrictions should apply to anyone who might be sent to another place.
The right hon. Member for Suffolk, Coastal (Mr. Gummer) made exactly the right point. He said that the amendment makes a meal out of something that is barely worth a bite. I agree with him entirely.
Amendment No. 4 is contrary to the view taken by the Select Committee on Home Affairs in its report, "Electoral Law and Administration". At paragraph 127 of volume 1, it recommended that
all restrictions on ministers of religion standing for, and serving as, Members of Parliament be removed; the exception would be in respect of all serving bishops of the Church of England who, for so long as places are reserved for the senior bishops in the House of Lords, should remain ineligible to serve as Members of the Commons.
The secret agenda that the hon. Member for Sevenoaks fears appears to be the secret agenda of the Conservative party rather than that of the Government. I do not know whether the support of the hon. Member for Buckingham (Mr. Bercow) for the Bill is part of a secret agenda, but the right hon. and learned Member for Sleaford and North Hykeham got it right. There is no secret agenda: it is overt.
There are 42 Church of England diocesan bishops, of whom 40 could qualify to sit in the House of Lords as Lords Spiritual. At any one time, only 26 are summoned to be Lords Spiritual and those bishops will be disqualified from House of Commons membership because they already have a voice in the Lords.
The proposal is broadly in line with the Home Affairs Committee recommendation, but it goes slightly wider. Although we consider it extremely unlikely that bishops—whether or not they are Lords Spiritual—would wish to become MPs while performing the duties of a bishop, it seems right in principle to relate the disqualification to those who actually have a voice in the other place. We therefore consider it right to remove all statutory restrictions, thereby enabling anyone—save for those bishops who are Lords Spiritual—who so wishes to become a Member of Parliament if elected.
I do not think that a queue of bishops wish to stand for Parliament, so the fears of the hon. Member for Sevenoaks are unfounded. I hope that he will withdraw the amendment.

Mr. Fallon: I shall not pretend that the amendment has widespread support across the Chamber and I shall certainly reflect on what has been said. However, the Home Affairs Committee supported it, saying that all serving bishops should be excluded. The Minister described that as going slightly wide of what he intended, but the Home Affairs Committee agreed with me that no serving bishops should be in the House. It is important to put that on record, but in view of the fact that the amendment did not attract quite as much support as I had originally anticipated, I beg to ask leave to withdraw it.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
Clause 1 ordered to stand part of the Bill.

Clause 2

SHORT TITLE, COMMENCEMENT AND EXTENT

Mr. Fallon: I beg to move amendment No. 11, in page 1, line 17, at end insert—
'(1A) This Act shall come into force on the day after the general election for the Parliament after that in which it is passed, and shall apply only to persons elected to the House of Commons after that date.'.
I hope that I have better luck with this one, Mr. Lord. The purpose of the amendment is very simple. It is to delay the implementation of the Bill until after the election. Let me immediately put on record that I have nothing against Mr. David Cairns or his ambition to serve as a Member of Parliament. In the fullness of time, I hope to welcome him to the House. If he finds a safer seat than the one for which he has been selected, we will all be ready to welcome him.
I made the point on Second Reading—and the amendment gives it effect—that introducing the Bill in order to support a candidate discriminates against those who might have put their names forward for selection by either party during the years in which candidates were selected, but did not do so because they knew how the law stood. We would be discriminating against all those people if we changed the law to benefit one individual.
On a more general point, I do not think that we should change the law governing elections either to suit a particular candidate or in the weeks running up to a general election, or to do so without widespread cross-party support. That is why in the old days, when these things were done properly, we had Speaker's Conferences where such matters could be discussed between the parties and then put on the statute book, so that at the beginning of the next Parliament everyone would be absolutely clear about where they stood.

Mr. Bercow: I put it to my hon. Friend and to the House that his argument is certainly unsustainable and possibly disingenuous because it would have been perfectly open to other individuals, knowing the law as it stood, to put themselves forward as prospective parliamentary candidates, to be selected as such and then to seek by democratic pressure to change the law. The fact that none of them apparently did so is really not a good reason to fail to do the right thing now.

Mr. Fallon: We could not know whether other candidates wanted to take advantage of a change in the law. To his credit, from the outset the Minister has been honest about the fact that the Bill has been introduced simply to facilitate the candidature of one individual. I think that it is bad law to legislate simply to assist one person. Perhaps it should have been a personal Act—we do not get many of those.

Mr. Gummer: rose—

Mr. Fallon: I am being challenged by my right hon. Friend the Member for Suffolk, Coastal (Mr. Gummer). I hope that he will not damage my case as much as he did on the previous amendment.

Mr. Gummer: Does my hon. Friend agree that, looking back over history, the law of the House has been

changed in response to the situations of individual Members. Bradlaugh changed the law of the House for his own good, in a sense. With the election of Wilkes, the law was changed for one man. The law was changed for Rothschild to allow Jews into the House. It has to be the individual case that concentrates the mind and enables us to take such decisions. My hon. Friend really ought to allow this to be in the great historical tradition of freedom.

Several hon. Members: rose—

Mr. Fallon: I am being pressed to give way again.

Mr. Mike O'Brien: The measure would come into effect the day after the general election, so deals only with Members being able to take up their seats. It would have no practical effect on an individual case. The law prevents people not from standing, but from taking up their seat. What is the point of the amendment?

Mr. Fallon: It avoids the situation that the hon. Gentleman outlined on Second Reading—
It being Five o'clock, THE CHAIRMAN put the Question already proposed from the Chair, pursuant to Orders [7 November and 6 February].
Amendment negatived.
Clause 2 ordered to stand part of the Bill.
Schedules 1 and 2 agreed to.

Miss Widdecombe: On a point of order, Mr. Lord. Can you explain what just happened? A number of hon. Members shouted "Aye" when you put the Question on amendment No. 11, but we did not have a Division. This is for my guidance only; I would not dream of challenging you.

The Second Deputy Chairman: The right hon. Lady is, in a polite way, challenging me. I believe that we followed the correct procedure.

Bill reported, without amendment.

Order for Third Reading read.

Mr. Mike O'Brien: I beg to move, That the Bill be now read the Third time.
In commending the Bill to the House, I should say that I am grateful for the very constructive way in which it has been considered. I am also grateful for the strong support that the hon. Member for Buckingham (Mr. Bercow) has given the Bill and for other Opposition Members' support for the principles behind it. I also express my gratitude to my hon. Friends, in particular my hon. Friend the Member for Mitcham and Morden (Siobhain McDonagh). She has been trying to bring the issue before the House for some time and to convince me that it is right to change the law, and I agree with her.
We have had a good discussion on some issues. The Bill was introduced because of the particular injustice that might have been done to an individual. However, there have been injustices in the past. Had we allowed this injustice to take place, it would have affected not just the


person involved, but a constituency Labour party and a whole constituency. They would not have been given the choice, which they may, or may not, accept.
The debate has shown that there are still strong feelings on religious issues in this place, and it is right that we discuss them. The main Churches in this country have been consulted. They agree that the restrictions are no longer required—if they ever were—and that they can be removed. The Government share that view. It would be absurd if Jews, Sikhs, Hindus, Muslims and other religious groups, including most nonconformist denominations, were able to become Members of the House, but that serving and former ministers of religion of some faiths were not allowed to do so. That is a particular hardship for people who are religious but who, as in the case of Mr. David Cairns, no longer wish to practise as a priest. The existing law hits those people hard, for they are not free to exchange one way of being in service to the public for another. It cannot be right that a former priest is denied the right to sit as a Member of Parliament solely on the grounds of his former calling.
As I said on Second Reading, I do not consider that there is likely to be a long queue of clergy pressing to become Members of Parliament. That will be a matter for Churches and individuals to consider, but I believe that it is for the individuals and for their constituents to consider, not for the House of Commons to dictate to the Churches involved. The Catholic Church does not consider that practising Catholic priests ought to be Members of Parliament, but I think it right that the House sends a message that, if the Catholic Church were to change its mind, no law of the state would prohibit a Catholic priest from sitting as a Member.
This small, but none the less somewhat controversial Bill—at least with some right hon. and hon. Members—will remove what I regard as an archaic restriction that has been in force for 200 years. A potential injustice will be avoided thereby. The repeal of existing legislation is timely and I hope that the House will give the Bill its wholehearted support.

Mr. Bercow: I rise to speak in support of giving the Bill its Third Reading. Its principles were thoroughly and rigorously debated on Second Reading and it is right and proper that we should have had the opportunity today further to consider the issues involved and proposed amendments in Committee. A Report stage was possible, but in the end—although obviously a matter of nip and tuck—it did not come to that, and we now have the pleasure and responsibility of engaging in what I hope will be a serious and constructive debate on Third Reading.
Much earlier, my right hon. Friend the Member for Bromley and Chislehurst (Mr. Forth) drew attention to his secular motivation, if I may so describe it. He emphasised that he was not a member of the Church of England, or of any other Church. I think that I do not misrepresent him in saying that he is not a religious person, and it might even be said that he is an irreligious person. Other right hon. and hon. Members who have spoken have either admitted or openly professed that they have a religious motivation, at least in part; therefore I think it right that I put my own cards on the table.
I practise no religion and I have no plans to do so. My late father, bless his cotton socks, was Jewish; my mother converted to Judaism, although I suspect that she would be first to concede that she did so out of convenience, not conviction. I was brought up in a Jewish household—I had a bar mitzvah and so on and so forth—and I have always strongly identified with the Jewish people. I have never apologised for or felt embarrassed about being Jewish—rather, I have been proud of it; and I have an especially strong identification with the state of Israel. However, I am not a religious person. I cannot get hung up about religious considerations.
None the less, I respect the fact that many people are motivated in their lives by a commitment to religion. I certainly recognise that religion can be a source—perhaps, for some people, the source—of civil obligation and personal morality, but I would argue that religion is by no means the only source of civil obligation or of personal morality. That is the vantage point—that of an irreligious person taking a secular interest in an important subject—from which I approach the Bill.
In supporting the proposition that the Bill be given its Third Reading, I emphasise that—as today's debates have made clear—I speak on my own account and in no sense on behalf of the Opposition. I repeat what has been said by others, including my right hon. Friend the shadow Home Secretary: it is deplorable that the Government have not allowed Labour Members a free vote on the Bill. It should be a matter of conscience for them, but it is assuredly a matter of conscience for us. Liberal Democrats have contributed to the proceedings of the Bill, and I think that they, too, have a free vote. Unfortunately—[Interruption.] The Minister is chuntering from a sedentary position to the effect that there is only one Liberal Democrat Member in the Chamber, the hon. Member for Hazel Grove (Mr. Stunell).

Mr. Forth: It is a very free vote.

Mr. Bercow: Indeed.

Mr. Stunell: Will the hon. Gentleman give way?

Mr. Bercow: Yes. The hon. Gentleman is provoked.

Mr. Stunell: Perhaps not for the first time in the debate, I should remind the hon. Gentleman that size is not important.

Mr. Bercow: I can rally to that proposition with enthusiasm and alacrity. I should be grateful to the hon. Gentleman. I have always and everywhere argued that size is not everything. I go so far as to say that height is not everything either.

Mr. Gummer: Does my hon. Friend agree that it is particularly important for the Liberal Democrat party to have at least one other Member present so that it may, as usual, vote on both sides of the case?

Mr. Bercow: That is right. However, with the self-effacement, modesty and characteristic understatement that we all associate with my right hon. Friend, he has not made the case as strongly as he could have done. To suppose that Liberal Democrats tend to divide in only two


directions on a piece of legislation is markedly generous to them. Ordinarily, we see a four-way split among Liberal Democrat Members—those in favour of a Bill, those against it, those who abstain and those who do not turn up or were not aware that the debate was taking place.

Mr. Stunell: This is a great deal more fun than the proceedings in Committee. Those who want to examine objectively the evidence that is being put to the House would want also carefully to examine the Division list for the only Division on the Bill that we have had so far today. The facts will speak for themselves. I do not believe that the Division list will show a united Conservative party on the issues that were facing us.

Mr. Bercow: rose—

Mr. Deputy Speaker (Mr. Michael Lord): Order. Before the hon. Member for Buckingham (Mr. Bercow) responds, I shall bring him back to Third Reading.

Mr. Bercow: I am grateful to be brought to heel, Mr. Deputy Speaker. Your exhortation is absolute as far as I am concerned.
I emphasise that we did not regard the Bill as a party matter. There are genuine differences of opinion among Conservative Members. In endorsing the call for a Third Reading, I am speaking for myself and not for the Conservative Opposition.
There have been some good exchanges on Second Reading and in Committee, and I hope that there will be good exchanges on Third Reading. By way of illustration, I pay tribute to the many Members who have spoken in the debate, generally in a good-natured fashion and representing a variety of different viewpoints. There have not been significant differences of opinion among Labour Members, but those who have spoken in support of the Bill have done so with clarity, with commitment and, in a number of instances, with passion. That is respected. I say that to the Minister and to the hon. Member for Mitcham and Morden (Siobhain McDonagh), who has introduced a ten-minute Bill on this important subject. I refer also to the hon. Member for Enfield, North (Ms Ryan).
I had originally intended to say that I was totally, utterly and unreconstructedly unrepresentative of my right hon. and hon. Friends. on this subject. I was not planning to say that apologetically, but by way of frankness and candour. As things have transpired and the debate has evolved, it has appeared to me that I am at least marginally less unrepresentative of my right hon. and hon. Friends than I originally supposed and anticipated.
I am delighted that I am in the company of my right hon. and learned Friend the Member for Sleaford and North Hykeham (Mr. Hogg). As far as I can tell—it seemed pretty clear from his ferocious eloquence—I am effectively in the lobby of my right hon. Friend the Member for Suffolk, Coastal (Mr. Gummer).
I thought originally that I would have to say that I was virtually in a minority of one—my hon. Friend the Member for Salisbury (Mr. Key) is not with us today—but that is not the case. Several Opposition Members see

a good and powerful case for the Bill. Nevertheless, there is no denying that there are Conservative Members who think that the Bill should not be given a Third Reading.

Mr. Forth: I hope that in this part of his analysis, my hon. Friend will make it clear that there are those who support the thrust and principle of the Bill, as I do, but are against its taking effect neatly in time for a general election, to bail out one Labour candidate, and that my hon. Friend will recognise the fact that I, and perhaps others, may have to vote against the Bill on Third Reading, even though we support its principles.

Mr. Bercow: Not for the first time, and I imagine not for the last, the symbiotic relationship that exists between my right hon. Friend and me has re-asserted itself. His remarks anticipate what I had intended to say. I wanted to draw attention to the different motivations of Conservative Members for refusing to give the Bill a Third Reading.

Mr. Swayne: I hope that my hon. Friend will acknowledge the body of opinion on the Conservative Benches that is wholly opposed to the principle of the Bill, but would have gone to some practical length to accommodate the problem in Greenock and Inverclyde.

Mr. Bercow: I am grateful to my hon. Friend. I had been planning to speak in complimentary terms about him—he is one of the great parliamentarians of our time. I mean that. I said it in his constituency, so there is no reason why I should not say it in the House. I do not resile from that tribute, but I am bound to say that my hon. Friend's views on the matter are antediluvian.

Dr. Julian Lewis: Pre-historic.

Mr. Bercow: Indeed. My hon. Friend the Member for New Forest, West (Mr. Swayne) might be described as a parliamentary troglodyte. He is living in the cave-man age. I richly enjoyed his historical exegesis and the development of his argument in opposition to the Bill, but I believe that he is profoundly mistaken. Listening to his speech, I was reinforced in my conviction that my hon. Friend was born in 1956 at the age of 140.

Mr. Gummer: I am sure that I was not the only Member who was unaware of the precise definition of the word "symbiotic" as my hon. Friend used it about our right hon. Friend the Member for Bromley and Chislehurst (Mr. Forth). If he explained it in detail, it would help us a good deal.

Mr. Deputy Speaker: Order. That may or may not be true. It certainly would not help the deliberations on the Third Reading of the Bill. I should be grateful if the hon. Member for Buckingham would return to those directly.

Mr. Bercow: Indeed, Mr. Deputy Speaker. I would otherwise have been enormously keen to refer to the precise page in the Oxford English dictionary, but on the basis of your guidance, I shall not make the attempt. I am grateful for your restraining influence.
Of all those who oppose the Bill, the person who has done so with the greatest passion and intellectual consistency is my right hon. Friend the Member for


Maidstone and The Weald (Miss Widdecombe), the shadow Home Secretary. It is important to emphasise that her view is perfectly legitimate. She is motivated by an intellectual conviction that the Bill is unjustified, and by her sense of the ethical, as well as the practical, incompatibility of serving priests continuing to serve as priests while being practising Members of the House of Commons.
I happen to believe that my right hon. Friend is mistaken in her conviction, but she adheres to that conviction tenaciously and powerfully, as she adheres to every other conviction that she holds or has held in the past. I do not criticise my right hon. Friend at all. We take different points of view.
My hon. Friend the Member for New Forest, West is in a broadly similar category. He is opposed to the Bill in principle. He thinks that it constitutes a form of parliamentary and possibly even religious vandalism, so he cannot bring himself to support it.
It is only fair to record that my right hon. Friend the Member for Bromley and Chislehurst has a different motivation entirely, as he helpfully reminded me. He made it clear in his contribution that he can see a case for the Bill. He thinks that it ought to be stated much more explicitly that the Bill is not just about the protection of one category of religious person, but that it extends much more widely—indeed, universally—to accommodate people of all faiths.
In that respect, he made what might be called the conservative politically correct case for an all-embracing, deregulatory measure.
There is nothing remotely surprising or unusual about that. In a sense, my right hon. Friend argued for the equivalent of what Dr. Erhard argued for in the immediate aftermath of the second world war regarding a bonfire of economic controls. In the light of his zealous commitment to deregulation, allowing the market to make decisions and leaving matters to the populace to judge for themselves, it was to be expected that he would not get hung up on a point of ecclesiastical doctrine or liturgy. Sure enough, he has done nothing of the sort, but he is motivated by one other factor: he believes that the Bill is cynically motivated, that it should not be introduced now and that it is unacceptable that, unless any last-minute developments occur, it will benefit only one individual, who has put himself forward as a prospective parliamentary candidate at the forthcoming election.
I want to deal briefly with those points, but before I develop my argument, I remind the House of what the Under-Secretary said at the commencement of Second Reading. He pointed out that two principal measures confirm in statute the discrimination to which there is now such widespread objection: the House of Commons (Clergy Disqualification) Act 1801 and the Roman Catholic Relief Act 1829. On Second Reading, there was some debate and dispute about whether one might be obliged to refer to as many as seven or eight items of legislation to say whether a minister of religion could be elected as a Member of Parliament and then take his seat. The hon. Gentleman said that he would not dilate on all those measures because he had been advised by Government lawyers that the two Acts did the trick on their own. However, there is widespread objection to that legislation and clear, strong and spontaneous support from

the different Churches in this country for the relatively modest reform that the Government now wish to take through the House.
I think that the Government are justified in seeking to introduce the Bill, but a recurrent question in all the debates on it is why they did not do what they are now proposing some time earlier. The argument that they should have done so is not entirely without merit. Many references have been made to the Home Affairs Committee report produced in the 1997–98 Session, which, as the Under-Secretary reminded the House, called for the removal of these antiquated restrictions on the entitlement to sit in the House of Commons.
We can argue the toss about how many opportunities the Government have had in this Parliament to introduce in legislation that has since been enacted the change proposed in the Bill. On my reckoning—I feel sure that I will have the eager and earnest attention of the Under-Secretary as I make this point—there were at least three opportunities earlier in this Parliament to introduce the measure that they now commend to the House, even though they were not very much earlier. The first opportunity—I think that I have got the right chronological order, although I cannot be certain—was the Representation of the People Act 2000. The Government could have constructed or amended that measure in Committee or on Report to make the changes that they now commend.

Siobhain McDonagh: On a point of information, I asked the Chairman of Ways and Means whether I could table such an amendment to either the Representation of the People Act 2000 or the Political Parties, Elections and Referendums Act 2000. Both times, I was told that such a proposal was outside the scope of the legislation.

Mr. Bercow: That is very interesting, though I am bound to tell the hon. Lady and the House that I in no sense retire hurt on the point. What she has said is not necessarily conclusive, not because there is a qualitative distinction or a distinction of status between her and a Front-Bench Member, but because the terms, purpose and architecture of a Bill are, in the first instance, matters of Government intention and Government inspiration. Therefore, although it may have been impossible for her to table an amendment of the kind reflected in this Bill, I am not at all persuaded that it would have been impossible for the Government so to have crafted the Representation of the People Act 2000 to admit of the change that they now commend. She may not be convinced, but that seems to me to be perfectly credible.
The hon. Lady referred also to the Political Parties, Elections and Referendums Act 2000. The same argument applies. Similarly, we undertook a lengthy, albeit hurried debate—the two are not incompatible—over a day and a half when we considered the Disqualifications Act 2000. It suited the Government to make a particular and narrow change, which was of interest to Members of the Dail, and they took that opportunity very much at the behest of Sinn Fein. The Minister would be hard pressed to prove that it was legislatively impossible to introduce a measure of the type that forms the basis of this Bill. Perhaps he is about to enlighten us.

Mr. Mike O'Brien: Certain things are possible, but they may not be desirable, and there were two good reasons why


such a measure may not have been desirable. First, accepting an amendment would have significantly widened the ambit of that legislation to include matters of this sort. A large number of other issues would have been introduced and there would have been potential to make further amendments to the measures, both of which were broad enough.
Secondly and much more importantly, we wanted fully to consult with the Churches, which took time to draw up their responses. As the hon. Gentleman will be aware, the previous cardinal regrettably died and a period elapsed before a new cardinal was appointed. We were concerned to ensure that the consultation was carried out properly and that we gave all the various Churches the time and opportunity to reach a view on the matter. They have done so, and we are grateful to them for that. Had we rushed into introducing an amendment to the legislation to which the hon. Gentleman has referred, we would not have allowed the time for consultation that the matter required.

Mr. Bercow: I always stand to be corrected or persuaded, but I am afraid that the Minister has not succeeded. It was a nice try. He advanced a poor argument as forcefully as he felt able to do in the circumstances, but it was not remotely persuasive. He should not be unduly troubled by what I am saying, however, because the Home Affairs Committee report was published in the 1997–98 Session and the three Bills to which I have referred were considered in the 1999–2000 Session.
Ministers have an extraordinary attitude to time. When it suits them, they hurry matters through at a ferocious rate of knots, admitting of minimal time for debate or objection. However, when they want to doff their hat to leisurely consideration and full consultation so that all points of view may be aired over an extended period, that is the course that they invariably take. Whatever justification the Minister might advance, it is not credible to argue that the consultation needed to take two years.
My view—shared by a number of my right hon. and hon. Friends—is that the Government could have made the change earlier. However—this is where I suspect the Minister and I agree—the fact that we could have done the right thing earlier, but did not do so, does not obviate the need to do the right thing now, when we have a further opportunity. That is, if I may say so, the lacuna in the arguments of a number of my right hon. and hon. Friends. They say "They could have done it before and did not bother to do so; why should we indulge them now?" I do not consider that to be a credible and sustainable position.
If we are fair—it irks me to be fair to this ghastly, crass, burdensome, irritating, smug and patronising new Labour Government—we must accept the reality that all Administrations have legislative priorities, and judgments to make about them. They are able to introduce some Bills in a Session, but not others. It is not possible for them to introduce every measure that is desirable, and that they would like to introduce, in a given Session. The fact that a Select Committee report has called for a measure does not mean that that measure will immediately be presented, and it is the height of absurdity to suppose otherwise.

Mr. Forth: rose—

Mr. Bercow: My right hon. Friend is clearly becoming upset, so I shall give way to him.

Mr. Forth: I simply wanted to remind my hon. Friend that the Government found legislative time for—indeed, gave legislative priority to—Bills as important as the Royal Parks (Trading) Bill, which concerned people selling hamburgers, and the Fur Farming (Prohibition) Bill, which sought to make illegal the living of a limited but important number of people.

Madam Deputy Speaker (Mrs. Sylvia Heal): Order. I remind the right hon. Gentleman that we are discussing this Bill, not previous Bills dealing with entirely different matters.

Mr. Bercow: You are absolutely right, Madam Deputy Speaker. I am exceptionally grateful to you for your reminder, and for the guidance that it contained. My point, however—in support of giving this Bill a Third Reading—was that the fact that the right thing had not been done in the past did not prevent us from doing the right thing now. My right hon. Friend the Member for Bromley and Chislehurst suggested that there was an alternative point of view. There is an alternative point of view; it just has the demerit of being mistaken.
I believe that when we have an opportunity to do the right thing, we should do it. The Government have introduced a number of foolish measures that they should not have introduced, and for which it would have been much better not to find time, but that is a reflection of the legislative priorities of the Administration by whom we are currently and, I hope, only temporarily belaboured. I still say that if we can pass this Bill now, we should do so.
Let me now deal with another argument advanced by my right hon. and hon. Friends who oppose Third Reading. It is a slightly different argument, or at least a variant on the theme of "They could have done it before but they did not, so they should not be allowed to do it now". My right hon. and hon. Friends argue that this ghastly, risible—gosh, I had better not be too rude—Government were motivated by consideration of the interests of just one individual, and that it is not right for a measure of this kind to be taken through Parliament simply to facilitate the ambition of that one individual.
It is as though the argument for the Bill were in some way sullied by the fact that there is, at least in the immediate term, only one possible beneficiary. I am sorry to have to say to my right hon. Friend the Member for Bromley and Chislehurst, and to my right hon. and hon. Friends who agree with him, that I do not think that that is right either, ethically or in terms of historical precedent.
In regard to ethics my feeling is that if the argument for reform is compelling, the fact that only one person will benefit is not a good reason for not passing legislation. I was not persuaded by the argument of my hon. Friend the Member for Sevenoaks (Mr. Fallon), who said that it was all frightfully unfair on people who could otherwise have been perspective parliamentary candidates at an earlier stage in the Parliament but declined to do so, because they knew that under existing law they could not take their seats.

Mr. Tom Clarke: Will the hon. Gentleman give way?

Mr. Bercow: I shall in a moment.
As I said to my hon. Friend the Member for Sevenoaks and to the House, it would have been perfectly open, at an earlier stage, for other individuals who aspired to sit in the House of Commons to get themselves selected as prospective parliamentary candidates and then to seek to change the law so that they could take their seats if they were elected. The fact that they chose not to do so is a matter for them. However, I do not think that that should prevent us from doing the right thing for the individual concerned in the present case. Before I develop the argument further, I shall give way to the right hon. Member for Coatbridge and Chryston (Mr. Clarke).

Mr. Clarke: I am very grateful to the hon. Gentleman, who is speaking with his customary eloquence. On this occasion, he is also speaking with much more logic than he may have used in some previous debates. I think that he is making an excellent point. I am puzzled by the argument that setting right an injustice on the basis of an individual case is not the right approach. Many precedents fly in the face of that argument. The hon. Gentleman will recall the case of the then Mr. Anthony Wedgwood Benn and the consequent legislation—which, remarkably, led to the election of one Alec Douglas-Home as leader of the Conservative party and as Prime Minister. Does the hon. Gentleman therefore agree that, if a turbulent priest should come to lead the Conservative party, the day may come when Conservative Members even bless this day?

Mr. Bercow: The hon. Gentleman is absolutely right. The only down-side of my giving way to him is that he has thoroughly stolen my thunder—I was going to make precisely that point. Implicit in the arguments of some of the Bill's critics is that we are behaving in an unprecedented manner. That is not true. History is littered with examples of measures taken by the House because of the pressure and immediacy of a given case. There is nothing remotely ignoble about that. It does not discredit the argument for a measure; nor is it an argument in favour of postponing or delaying that measure.
One could say, "There is an ethical argument and an intellectual case for the Bill. We will not do anything about it now because there is no particularly pressing case that requires its passage and there are other matters in the Government timetable. However, we will in due course consider when we can accommodate it within our legislative programme. When a particular case comes along that gives it an added piquancy, the Government of the day will introduce it." That seems to be perfectly reasonable.
The historical recollection of the right hon. Member for Coatbridge and Chryston is, as far as I am aware, absolutely correct. The legislation that he mentioned is the Peerage Act 1963. It did indeed facilitate the re-entry into this place of the right hon. Member for Chesterfield (Mr. Benn). It is also true that when Lord Home of The Hirsel became leader of the Conservative party and Prime Minister in—if memory serves me correctly—October 1963, he had to come into the House of Commons and was a beneficiary of that legislation.
As the right hon. Gentleman will know, those are not the only historical precedents that can be adduced in support of the Government's proposals. There are other cases. Although it may not be entirely convenient to refer to them, it is justified to do so. For example, in arguing the case for the Bill's passage, I have in mind the

Defamation Act 1996. The previous Government passed that legislation without, I think, opposition, and possibly with assistance from the then Labour Opposition, on the grounds—I am trying very much to relate the matter directly to Third Reading of this Bill—that the then hon. Member for Tatton would thereby be able to use extracts from parliamentary debates in pursuing his legal actions. It seemed extraordinary that, by an historical anomaly, he had been unable to do that. Passage of the 1996 Act enabled Mr. Neil Hamilton to use parliamentary proceedings and the parliamentary record to make his case. So there is also that example.
There is also a more recent example. Admittedly, it does not concern the passage of a piece of legislation, but it does concern a judgment made by the House of Commons. There is a particular appropriateness about the presence of the Parliamentary Secretary, Privy Council Office—

Madam Deputy Speaker: Order. I remind the hon. Gentleman that we are debating the Third Reading of the House of Commons (Removal of Clergy Disqualification) Bill. I ask him to confine his remarks to that.

Mr. Bercow: Of course. I am arguing that one reason why this Bill should be given a Third Reading—I know that this is what you were jogging me along to reach, Madam Deputy Speaker—is that it will enable a prospective parliamentary candidate fully to exercise his democratic rights. The Bill is principally for that purpose.
The only other measure that I had in mind was one of the Government's, which was intended to protect the rights of Members of Parliament. That was taken with the support of Government Front Benchers to enable the legal costs of a Member of Parliament sued by one or more of his constituents to be defrayed. That decision was taken in order to assist in the particular case of my hon. Friend the Member for Mid?Worcestershire (Mr. Luff), but it could of course apply much more widely. I do not remember Members objecting—not in large numbers or vocally—that we would not be justified in passing such a measure simply because it helped only one person. It could help more.

Mr. Swayne: The measures to which my hon. Friend has drawn attention were mainly cost-free, in that enacting them achieved the aim intended but with no unforeseen consequence. We are being asked to enact a Bill to provide relief for someone who is no longer a clergyman. The problem is that the consequence will be that any number of clergymen will be able to populate these Benches.

Mr. Bercow: My hon. Friend is engaging in a certain amount of crystal-ball gazing. As my right hon. Friend the Member for Suffolk, Coastal suggested, it is very unlikely that any significant numbers of religious individuals—men or women of the cloth—would seek to enter this House. However, we have a duty—in this respect, my hon. Friend has a point—to anticipate that outcome. It could happen. Several people who are priests or former priests could stand for Parliament. That is obviously anathema to my hon. Friend; it is not anathema to me.

Mr. Stunell: Will the hon. Gentleman express an opinion on whether the House would be better or worse if it were stuffed full of priests or stuffed full of lawyers?

Mr. Bercow: That challenge is pretty unfair because, as the hon. Gentleman might know—if he does not, he is


about to discover—I regularly make the point that I am not a lawyer and that I say that as a matter of pride. There are many lawyers in this place, and that gravely incommodes me. I am very unhappy about it; I find them irritating individuals. If one gathers together three lawyers, one invariably encounters no fewer than five opinions. I do not know that we are especially well served by a large complement of lawyers, but I share some of the anxieties of my right hon. Friend the Member for Suffolk, Coastal about members of the Church of England and, indeed, of a number of Churches in this country. It is not always readily apparent that they are as preoccupied with preaching the religious message that it is their duty to preach as with the pursuit of secular matters that should properly be considered and considered by them outwith their remit.
I am not enthusiastic about having a great many churchmen or churchwomen in this place. Moreover, I even go so far as to agree with my right hon. Friend the Member for Maidstone and The Weald that, simply in terms of practicalities, it is difficult to see how a practising minister of religion can also find time to be an assiduous and effective Member of Parliament. That leads me to the final and most compelling argument in support of the Bill: public opinion. Just before I dilate on that point, I shall give way.

Ms Ryan: I acknowledge that the hon. Gentleman has been a sterling ally in trying to see the Bill through, but he has been speaking for some 38 minutes. Right hon. and hon. Members on both sides of the House who have played a part in the Bill's proceedings would like to contribute to the debate. When will the hon. Gentleman allow them the opportunity to do so?

Mr. Bercow: The hon. Lady makes a fair point. I shall very shortly bring my remarks to a conclusion. I think that I have a good excuse for not knowing that all that many people on the Government Benches want to speak. On Second Reading, the House was not exactly replete with Labour Members wishing to contribute. However, the hon. Member for Enfield, North has played an important part in the Bill's proceedings, and of course she should have an opportunity to contribute to the debate, if she is able to catch your eye, Madam Deputy Speaker.
I conclude with the point about democracy, which, ultimately, is the kernel of the argument for the passage of the Bill through this House today. There are those who say "once a priest, always a priest"; they believe that the priestly vocation is incompatible with secular public service and, in particular, with the performance of parliamentary duties. I was about to say that I do not think that that is true. However, I am not sure that I know whether I think that that is true. As I said at the outset, I am not religiously motivated in these matters. I would not presume to compete with the religious commitment of my right hon. Friend the Member for Maidstone and The Weald or with the extent of her knowledge of religion. I do not know whether they are compatible, but whatever my right hon. Friend and other right hon. and hon. Members who are opposed to the Bill think about the compatibility or otherwise of a religious ministry with a parliamentary career, they should not seek to foist those

views on the country as a whole via the passage of a statute. That is the point. It is a matter of what the public want.
If a churchman stands for Parliament, makes it clear that he intends still to practise his ministry and to combine it with parliamentary service, the voters can decide. If the voters think that the two vocations are incompatible on ethical or practical grounds, they have a very simple recourse—not to vote for, and perhaps even to vote against, such a candidate. The matter should be determined by public opinion.
The existing statutes of 1801 and 1829 are archaic, antediluvian and indefensible. It is time that they went. The Bill might be a relatively modest measure. Perhaps a more far-reaching Bill could, and should, be introduced at a later stage. However, even those Members who are not convinced that what is being offered is the full cake and who suspect that it might be only half a cake will, I hope, if they are hungry for change, prefer to eat a slice than to be deprived of any nutritional sustenance at all.
This is essentially a good Bill. It deserves to be passed, and the fact that it was not introduced before does not mean that today we should not take the opportunity to wish it godspeed and give it a Third Reading. That is what I want to do; it is what I intend to do when the House is divided, as it will be, and I hope that I will be joined by a number of right hon. and hon. Members from both sides of the House.

Dr. Godman: I promise to be brief. I will certainly not take as long as the hon. Member for Buckingham (Mr. Bercow), although his was a powerful and eloquent speech. I think, if I heard him aright, that he said that when we have the opportunity to do the right thing, we should take it. I agree.
The hon. Gentleman also said that the Bill's objective is to remove antiquated restrictions. In the eyes of many of my constituents, the Bill is concerned with the task that the House has undertaken for many years of dismantling the wall of discrimination against Catholics and many others.
Let me give an example. We have come a long way since a Conservative Member of Parliament, one Howard Vincent, representing Sheffield, Central, said in 1904:
While over 260,000 people emigrated from the United Kingdom last year, their places were taken by no less than 82,000 of the scum of Europe.
He was referring, in that dreadful speech, mainly to Jews. However, my Scottish colleagues could tell the House of the discrimination suffered by many Catholics who emigrated to Scotland from Ireland, including my wife's grandparents. In the early 1920s, her grandfather was one of many Catholics in Govan who had to stand watch over the building of a church which, once the contract workers left, was progressively demolished by people deeply hostile to Catholics in that area.
The shadow Home Secretary speaks with great fervour and conviction. I am one who left her Church many years ago—long before she entered it, although there is no connection between the two facts—and I suspect that she deeply regrets the lack of compatibility between her Church's canon law and the civil legislation of the United Kingdom. The Catholic Church, while upholding


canon law, nevertheless wants an end to institutionalised discrimination against its members. Last year Ms Gay Catto of the Home Office constitutional and community policy directorate received a letter from the Right Rev. Monsignor Arthur Roche, saying:
it would appear that there is no reason for the Catholic Church to oppose such a change in legislation, although it is necessary to point out that priests exercising their ministry and in good standing with the Church would come under the prohibition of Canon 285#3. It is also noted that this would remove what might seem to be discriminatory legislation from the Statute Book.
Cardinal Thomas Winning said something similar in his letter to an official at the Home Office as part of the consultation process.
I shall not mention local matters, as this is not a pre-election speech. My seat, however, is one of the safest in Scotland, and is a lot safer than it was when I took it on a few years ago.
Institutional discrimination is being dismantled in the United Kingdom. We can see that at its clearest in Northern Ireland. I know many Catholics there, and I am chairman of my party's Northern Ireland committee. I have spoken to many members of the nationalist community who say that they have seen dramatic change in recent years in what the House of Commons has done about the discrimination that they had suffered for generations. Moderate Unionists would say the same.
We are dealing with a form of discrimination. I may be charged with being a Leninist in this matter, but I believe that the ends justify the means. We should put aside the points about an individual candidate and continue to dismantle all forms of discrimination. If we want to live in a tolerant society that honours, protects and promotes the needs and concerns of its minorities, we must persist with legislation such as this so that all groups—recent incomers to the United Kingdom, or whoever—can say, "Yes, this is a tolerant society, and I am proud to live in such a nation."

Mr. Gummer: This is an important Bill, and I am pleased that we are to pass it, because it is clear from the debates that we have had so far that is the will of the House of Commons. The Bill is important because it rids the statute book of an attitude to a section of the community—an attitude that was steeped in prejudice and discrimination. We have to remember why the disqualification exists. At the time of Catholic emancipation, the House of Commons could not rid itself of the fear of Catholic priests. It could just about imagine that Catholics should not be locked up, but it could not quite bring itself to think that Catholic priests could be treated like other human beings. So, in order to satisfy the most revanchist views, it excluded Catholic priests from public life. That was the effect and the intention. To reverse that position by passing the Bill must be a valuable step. For that reason alone, we should support its Third Reading.
It is not rational to argue that it is improper to give the Bill a Third Reading simply because it applies to the case of a Labour candidate in Scotland. It has always been true that individual cases make law. That is how law is often made. If one presents to the House of Commons a possibility or a for instance, the House often says, "Well, it may not arise. We have lots of other things to do. Why should we apply ourselves to that?"
It is only when a Bradlaugh comes and says, "I cannot take the oath in good conscience," that the House of Commons has to decide what to do about people who cannot take the oath in good conscience. It is only when someone such as Wilkes says, "You may not like me, but I have been elected," that change is made. Three times he had to say that before the House of Commons was prepared to let him in. It is only when a Lord Stansgate says, "I do not want to be Lord Stansgate any longer. I insist that my electorate has elected me," that we change the law. It is only when an individual says, "I am the case that proves that the change is necessary," that we can no longer say that the problem is merely hypothetical, and the House does its proper job and gets rid of legislation that is no longer appropriate.

Mr. Fallon: My right hon. Friend has made again the point that he made earlier today, and very eloquent it is. However, in each of the three cases that he has put before the House, the process took some considerable time. The arguments made on behalf of the individual were rightly tested either in the courts or through successive attempts to change the law. We are being asked to consider making a one-off change very quickly just before a general election.

Mr. Gummer: My hon. Friend's case would be weightier if during the debate anyone had made an argument that even began to stand in real opposition to the central purpose of the Bill.  [Interruption.] I will come to my hon. Friend's arguments in a moment. Even my right hon. Friend the Member for Bromley and Chislehurst (Mr. Forth) began his argument by saying that he was in favour of the Bill. My hon. Friend the Member for Sevenoaks (Mr. Fallon) is not against the Bill; he simply raises questions about the speed of the measure, and says that we do not have enough time to think about it.
We have had enough time to think about the measure—

Mr. Fallon: No, we have not.

Mr. Gummer: We have had nearly 200 years to wonder whether the proposal is sensible.
I am a Conservative; I am a believer that what has been is not necessarily bad, and that that which has stood the test of time may well be taken into account. I certainly believe that what is new is not always good, but 200 years—or at least that part of the last 200 years during which I have been able to think—have given me enough time to realise that there is no basis for such arguments.
This Third Reading reminds us of the central issue: Parliament cannot properly enter into discussions about the validity of holy orders. I am very committed to the importance of the validity of orders—indeed, like at least one other Member of the House, I have proved my commitment; it is the reason why I ceased to be an Anglican and became a Catholic. I did so because of the nature of authority and its effect on the orders of the Church, so I think that I have a right to speak on that issue.
The validity of orders is a matter of faith; it is not a matter of secular jurisdiction. The idea that that matter of faith should inform the discussion as to which persons should be allowed to stand for and sit in Parliament seems odd.


It would be much better for us to recognise, first, that the matter is one of enormous importance—more so than almost all the things that we discuss in this largely secular assembly. Secondly, however, the fact that it is important does not mean that it is relevant to the discussion about who should stand for Parliament. Its importance is eternal, but its relevance is minimal to that issue. That is why we should give the Bill its Third Reading.
My hon. Friend the Member for New Forest, West (Mr. Swayne) expostulated when I suggested that no reasonable case had been made against the Bill. I do not want to do him a disservice. I should certainly not go as far as my hon. Friend the Member for Buckingham (Mr. Bercow), who sits on the Front Bench and who referred in uncharacteristically uncomplimentary terms to my hon. Friend the Member for New Forest, West. I do not call my hon. Friend antediluvian, although I think that many of his views are not up to date. For example, his views on Europe are very, very out of date. However, that is proper for him; he can carry on as he is and let the world go by. That is up to him. He can be a Member of the House and make those points.
Let us imagine, however, that at some distant point my hon. Friend is ordained as a clergyman of the Church of England—not in Wales, but just over the border in the diocese of Hereford. After serving for a year or two, he decides that he has mistaken his vocation. At that point, he could become anything from a brain surgeon—if qualified—to a lorry driver or a taxi driver. He could represent the Rotarians at an international conference. There is no vocation that he could not follow—except that of Member of Parliament. The argument for that is difficult to uphold. Why could he do anything but be a Member of the House of Commons, even though he might have managed to persuade a large number of people to choose him as their candidate and to vote for him? That is manifestly barmy, and I cannot understand the logic of it, which is why I do not believe that a strong case has been put for retaining the current law.
A better case relates to clergymen of the Church of England on historic grounds. Once upon a time, Church of England clergymen owed their living to the state. The issue was tied up with ensuring that the House of Commons was not stuffed with placemen. Therefore, it is perfectly reasonable to say that that original prohibition was not discriminatory; it was a proper reflection of the need to keep the House independent. So in deciding whether to agree to Third Reading, we must ask ourselves whether that situation now obtains. The answer is no; it is no longer true that a member of the clergy of the Church of England has so close a relationship to the state, through payment, that he would be unable to act independently in the House.
The office of profit—in so far as a clergyman's salary today can be referred to in those terms—is no longer under the Crown in the direct sense that it once was. Perhaps, in an indirect sense, the livings in the hands of the Crown as patron are of that kind, but they are disgorged, shared or whatever in a wholly different way than they were in the past. It would be extremely difficult to show that a Church of England clergyman was a placeman in that sense, and thus should be denied entry

to the House. The argument relating to Church of England clergymen is stronger; none the less it can no longer be upheld.
It is also true that it is more proper for the House to deal with Church of England clergymen than with those of any other Church, for that is the established Church, and its establishment means that we in the House can properly deal with such matters. I do not suggest that that that is universally accepted, but given the constitution of the House, we can properly deal with the Church of England in a way that is different from our dealings with any other denomination. In our role as guardians of the wider public interest as affected by the established Church, we must ask ourselves whether it is proper for us to exclude its ministers from standing for election and sitting in Parliament. The answer is that no basis for such an exclusion exists.
The Bill's Third Reading cannot be held up on the grounds that we think that the wider interests of Her Majesty's subjects might be affected if clergymen were allowed to stand for election and to sit in the House. I can think of no way in which that would happen. Although you have not had the luck to be present throughout the preceding debates, Madam Deputy Speaker, I can say that I heard no argument to suggest, in that narrow sense, that in our role of defending the general public from the activities of the established Church, we should make an exception for its ministers. That brings me to the rights of others.
We have laughed about the curious anomalies that might be introduced if we were to make a distinction between the episcopally ordained and the non-episcopally ordained. I take the nature of episcopal ordination very seriously. Indeed, at the heart of my disagreement with the Church of England was my belief that it had forfeited its ability to talk about its episcopal ordination as it once could. Unlike my hon. Friend the Member for Buckingham, I think that an important matter. I speak from an entirely religious point of view, but the suggestion that being able to dispense the sacrament validly should exclude someone from becoming a Member of the House of Commons seems very odd, especially as that exclusion does not apply to Baptist ministers, or to those who do not believe in the priesthood or in the sacraments in the same sense as Catholics do.
We are a curiously heterogenous House, but our ability to prognosticate on the detailed matters of theology and canon law has not hitherto struck me as being very obvious. I have listened carefully to the debates and I have heard people use words that suggest that their familiarity with the precise details of Thomist philosophy is at least distant. Therefore, if I were looking for a body to prognosticate on the nature of valid ordination, it would not be the House of Commons. I would go somewhere else, and that somewhere else would be the Church concerned.
The Holy Catholic Church has made its decision and it says that its priests cannot stand for Parliament. That is perfectly right and I agree with it. However, it is right that it, and not the House, should say that. It is right that I should support the decision in my capacity as a faithful Catholic, but not in my capacity as a Member of Parliament. That is the proper distinction for me to draw.
I shall say something that will upset a number of my colleagues, but I wish to say it none the less. We would be placed in a very difficult position vis-à-vis the


European human rights legislation if we were not to give the Bill a Third Reading. [Interruption.] Before my hon. Friend the Member for Buckingham says anything, I remind him why the European convention on human rights was introduced. It was established by many countries, including the United Kingdom, to defend many minorities in the rest of Europe, particularly those behind the iron curtain and those who needed protection from persecution. Many of them were Jewish do not like the way in which some people take lightly a convention that was entered into in all good faith by this country to ensure that people were protected.

Mr. Forth: Will my right hon. Friend give way on that point?

Mr. Gummer: I shall return to my right hon. Friend in a moment.
I wish to make another point that is pertinent to the Bill. We British are inclined to believe that the only people who discriminate are people abroad, and that we are always perfect. In fact, we have a long history of pretty bad discrimination. I do not wish to associate myself with a whole range of things that we, like so many others, have done in all sorts of places. We happen to have done some pretty good things as well. The rule of law has been much enhanced by the fact that Britain took it to many parts of the world. There is no doubt about that, and I am not for a moment underestimating the huge contribution that we have made.
However, this Bill is in some part an acknowledgement that we have discriminated in many areas. Northern Ireland provides an example that we live to regret. Let us not easily believe that this is an unimportant issue. We should place ourselves in the proper ambit of the standards to which we should all adhere. In a sense, being willing to adhere to those standards through the Bill will allow us to have the right to say to other people, "You, too, should adhere to those standards."
We should abhor discrimination. The fact that the issue is properly covered by the European convention on human rights, which is referred to in the Bill, is a matter that we should be pleased about. My hon. Friend the Member for Buckingham might support that view when I remind him that it has nothing to do with that institution with which he is not altogether happy—the European Union.

Mr. Mike O'Brien: I remind the right hon. Gentleman that he is not as alone among his right hon. and hon. Friends as their comments about the European convention might have suggested. When the Human Rights Bill was considered on Third Reading, the Conservative Front Bench spokesman wished the Bill well and there was certainly no Division. In fact, the Bill received broad support from all parties.

Mr. Gummer: I agree with the Minister. I wish to conclude my speech. but I have an awful feeling that I promised to give way to my right hon. Friend the Member for Bromley and Chislehurst, and I would not want to miss what he has to say.

Mr. Forth: I am grateful to my right hon. Friend. I simply wanted to suggest that in exactly the same way as the Bill seeks to put right something that happened a long

time ago, the European convention was a creature of circumstances 50 years ago, and the world has moved on. The fact that its provenance was European is irrelevant for these purposes, but we now live in a different world, and constantly to be told that we have to give obeisance to a 50-year-old convention that was created in very different circumstances is about as relevant as this Bill is to the Act that it seeks to repeal.

Mr. Gummer: If we are behaving properly as regards these matters, we need not worry about the European convention. If we are not, it is pretty disgraceful. So I do not consider that to be a sensible argument. In large measure it is otiose, and bringing it into our law was not a high priority for me because I do not think it matters very much, and because certain peculiarities of the common law make it quite difficult to deal with. However, it is a pity to object to the European convention on human rights in a rather offhand way when we are debating the removal of discrimination, which is the proper thing to do and something of which I approve.

Mr. Bercow: Of course I am aware that the European convention on human rights is not related to the European Union, but can I put it to my right hon. Friend that many Conservative Members—I suspect a very large number—opposed the Human Rights Bill on Second Reading, and that many Conservatives are motivated by belief in the Burkean doctrine of rights. which is not a doctrine of natural rights, rather than by the highfalutin declarations of abstract principle that tend to be reflected in the European convention?

Mr. Gummer: I shall not be led away from the Bill that we are discussing, which reflects a view of human rights that seems perfectly compatible with Conservative beliefs. I say that as someone who has a difficulty with the word "rights" in any case. I happen to believe that we do not have rights, but obligations. I do not believe that created human beings can have rights, but that we owe our creation to the Almighty and therefore owe obligations to him and to our fellow creatures. Our rights inhere in other people's obligations rather than in anything that is selfishly held to ourselves. That happens to be my view. I think that Thomas Paine did a great deal of damage, and that we would have done much better to follow a much older tradition in terms of rights and obligations.
I am not sure that that gets us anywhere when we come to discuss the European convention on human rights. I am pleased that the House will be passing a small Bill with a small effect; but it is a proper effect and it removes yet again another piece of discrimination against the Catholic Church.
On Third Reading we have to confine ourselves to what is in the Bill, but let me say to the Minister that this Bill reminds me of one of those new office buildings in which the largest part of the space is made up of an atrium, otherwise known as an empty hole. I feel that we ought to have had a better Bill. It ought to have got rid of all those things that suggest that being a Catholic makes one a second-class citizen. I do not understand why that opportunity was not taken, and I wish it had been. I shall vote for the Bill, but my vote is cast on the basis that the Government know that the next Conservative Government will do what this Government should have done.

Siobhain McDonagh: Almost four years after getting elected, I still cannot attempt to be as eloquent as other hon. Members have been on this issue and I have not learned the ways of the House enough to want to repeat what other people have said.
For my part, supporting the Bill is about saying that we should not discriminate against people of any religion or no religion. A Methodist minister, an imam, a Catholic priest and a Greek Orthodox Church priest should have an equal right to stand for Parliament, to be selected, to get elected—if the voters so wish—and to take up a seat in the House. As a Back Bencher, it has been an amazing voyage to see a tiny issue, which affects few people, create such interest and concern and generate understanding in hon. Members. That process has strengthened the House. It has shown that we do not only debate huge issues that involve millions of people, because this matter involves the rights of the individual.
I thank Professor Robert Blackburn of King's college for his help. He was mentioned several times on Second Reading. Without him, I would have had no knowledge that such discrimination existed. I believe that he has also been a great help to the Home Office and my hon. Friend the Minister in particular, whom 1 also want to thank. My small insight into how much it takes to get a Bill this far makes me even more amazed at the amount of work that Ministers and shadow Ministers do. The forces of conservatism are strong and it is very difficult to achieve change. The proposal that we are debating today is right because it is wrong to discriminate. The proposal is right not because a Labour candidate will be discriminated against if the law is not changed, but because it is right in itself.
My interest began because a constituent would not have been allowed to take up his seat were he elected. However, it has become a wider issue because people of my faith and others are discriminated against, which is wrong in the 21st century. We should change the law as quickly as possible. I am sorry that that did not happen two years or 18 months ago, but it was not for the want of trying. Many issues affect the Government, and I am glad that this small issue has reached the top of their list. The change will benefit not only David Cairns but everyone else who wants to stand for election and is disbarred because he previously decided to become a member of the clergy of an episcopally ordained faith.
We should pass the Bill because it is right. It is to the benefit of the House that we care about such matters.

Mr. Stunell: I thank my hon. Friends who were gracious enough to allow me to speak on their behalf in the debate. It has been a fascinating occasion.
I am pleased that the Bill will become law. We should be ashamed that residual acts of religious discrimination are still on the statute book. The fact that one case prompted the change is not a good reason to back away from ending discrimination. Much has been said about discrimination against Catholics, and I certainly oppose legislation that has that effect. I am a Baptist and legislation that applied to Catholics applied to Baptists with equal force. From the different end of the religious spectrum, I feel as strongly as others about the need to withdraw such acts of discrimination. When the Bill is

passed, all ministers of religion, whatever their religion, their faith and then standing in their Churches, will be eligible—if their electors grant them success in an election—to represent people in the House of Commons. That is right.
There is no reason to discriminate against people simply because their Church or their employer has a different set of rules. Those engaged in some types of employment are prevented from engaging in political activity—indeed, I spent some years working in that type of employment. I accepted the restrictions of my employment, but I was not prevented by law from doing that which I eventually did, which is change my employment and take up political activity.
We appear to have misunderstood one of the consequences of the existing law: that the law as it stands, unreformed, tends to keep out of the House of Commons those who accept the values of society which we all profess to espouse profoundly, and let in those who do not necessarily share those values. On the pragmatic and rational grounds of trying to get into the House of Commons more people who espouse the values that we all say we share, we should be prepared to pass the Bill.
Widely diverse views have been expressed in our debates—I call the phenomenon the Buckingham consensus. The hon. Member for Buckingham (Mr. Bercow) made a powerful speech—considerably longer than my own will be—in which he drew attention to the existence of many different views. He attributed four different views to members of my own party, but, on reflection, he might repent of that, especially as he and his right hon. and hon. Friends have expressed five different views during the debate.

Mr. Bercow: That is diversity.

Mr. Gummer: We are on a free vote.

Mr. Stunell: True, so let us examine that diversity. If I understood his remarks correctly, the right hon. Member for Bromley and Chislehurst (Mr. Forth) is in favour of the principle but against the specifics of giving relief in the individual case, whereas the hon. Member for New Forest, West (Mr. Swayne) is in favour of finding a way of allowing the gentleman in Scotland to stand, but opposed to the principle. The hon. Member for Buckingham is in favour both of the principle and of the mechanism and therefore supports the Bill, whereas the right hon. Member for Maidstone and The Weald (Miss Widdecombe) opposes the Bill lock, stock and barrel.
Finally, the right hon. Member for Suffolk, Coastal (Mr. Gummer) is not merely in favour of the Bill, but wants to go further and eliminate all discrimination against religious groups. I make that five categories of opinion within the Conservative party, whose members have a free vote tonight. Perhaps the Buckingham consensus will hold—we shall see. However, I can assure the hon. Member for Buckingham that, in a free vote, we Liberal Democrats will all be in the same Lobby as him.

Mr. Bercow: Who is the "we"?

Mr. Stunell: As is so often the case, I am surrounded by a heavenly host of my colleagues.
Having spoken about the Conservatives, I turn to the Government. I think that they would admit—privately, in the Tea Room, after the vote is over—to a little embarrassment about the way in which the Bill has been introduced. Whatever the Minister says—he has tried to frame it in the best possible light—the truth is that the issue was clearly on the agenda three years ago and there were plenty of opportunities for progress to be made far more briskly than it has. Indeed, if we look for historical precedents, we see that it was on the agenda far more than three years ago.
Instead, the Government jerked into action only when they realised that it was in their best interests to do so. That is not the right foundation for reform. I made that point on Second Reading and I repeat it again today. It is the test of a reformer that he reforms when it is not wholly in his own interest, not that he reforms only when it is solely in his own interest. When I see what opportunities there have been to introduce alternative legislation to fill the slot, it is clear that the Bill is opportunistic in its timing, if nothing else.
One argument against the Bill is that we should not proceed on the basis of particular cases. I do not believe that that is the right approach, and several Members have sought to refute it. I shall briefly add some further refutations.
The legislation that caused all the problems was The House of Commons (Clergy Disqualification) Act 1801. It was put on the statute book following the election of the Rev. Horne Tooke to Old Sarum. I like the name Horne Tooke and I feel the need to wind it into my speech.
The House was scandalised by the election of the Rev. Horne Tooke. He was such a radical voice that the House wanted to find a way of excluding him from this place. Legislation was brought forward, which we are now seeking to repeal. It was designed specifically to exclude someone who was regarded as a dangerous radical from this place. The precedent for the 1801 Act coming into force is hardly one from which we can derive pride. We certainly should not be worried about considering a particular case and repealing the Act
Another hard case was that of the Rev. MacManaway in 1950. On that occasion, the Home Secretary of the day ran away from the issue. The resulting legal judgment probably left us in an even deeper mess than hitherto.
Much has been said about priests who will be too busy to do two jobs. I do not know about that. The right hon. and learned Member for Sleaford and North Hykeham (Mr. Hogg) said that he is a practising barrister. I remember having a discussion with him shortly after the last general election, when he was no longer occupying a Cabinet seat. He made it clear that he regarded it as an important part of his role as a Member to pursue a wider career and to bring extra experience into the House. No doubt he would say to his colleagues in the legal profession that his membership of this place gave him added insights when it came to working with the law.
I do not support or defend the right hon. and learned Gentleman's pursuit of a second career. I do not pursue one. However, it is difficult to see how the commitment, experience, skill and brain power that is needed to be brought to bear by a priest in holy orders, when coupled with membership of this place, would put the individual in a less favourable position than a QC or other barrister who pursues a legal career at full blast outside the House.
The argument that someone cannot do two jobs does not bear examination, particularly when it comes from the Conservative party, which historically has seen employment outside the House as bringing value to the House rather than taking value away from it.
The case in point involves not a practising priest, but someone who has taken holy orders and, because his Church's discipline does not allow for the relinquishment of those orders, is deemed still to be a priest. If he had been an Anglican—a member of the Church of England in England and an ordained member of it—he would have been able to relinquish holy orders. As a retired clergyman, he could have taken up his preferred career in politics.
Many arguments have been advanced about the special role that priests fulfil, about the necessity of their committing time to it and about conflicts with Church discipline, but when we unpick them we find that they are entirely irrelevant to the central question that faces the House, which is whether we want to maintain discrimination against a religious minority, preventing members of it from entering the House if they so choose and the electorate so chooses, or whether we want to sweep that discrimination away. The answer for me and for many of my colleagues is that it should have been swept away a long time ago, and we should act now.

Ms Ryan: The House can be proud of itself today if, as we may be entitled to expect, we give the Bill a Third Reading. Ensuring equal rights for all our citizens is an important part of the work of Parliament, which our citizens would expect us to do.
The question of timing has been raised, but the issue was never likely to come before the House unless there was an individual case driving it. That may be a shame, but it is realistic to acknowledge it. Because of that, the issue was always likely to arise a little late in the day. If there is a particular case driving it, that must involve someone who has been selected, and we select candidates not long before a general election.
The timing of the Bill was therefore inevitable. It is not opportunistic simply because the candidate in question is a Labour candidate. I say that for two reasons. First, in his opening remarks on Second Reading, my hon. Friend the Minister was entirely open about the case that triggered the Bill. There is no hidden agenda. Secondly, I believe, although I accept that some Opposition Members may not agree, that a Labour Government would have taken the same action in the case of a Conservative candidate. I believe that because of our commitment to equal rights, human rights and social justice. I do not accept that the timing of the Bill presents a difficulty.
If there has been a difficulty, it has been for only one person—Mr. Cairns. I am pleased that we have removed that difficulty, as he is entitled to the same rights as anyone else in this land. He is entitled to look to his Government and Parliament to ensure that he has those rights. We can be proud that we have taken the necessary action.
In some ways, it is amusing for me, as a woman Member of Parliament, to argue for equal rights for men. Clearly, the Bill may affect women as well, now that there are ordained women priests in the Church of England; it will mainly affect ex-priests, as they do not have the right


to renounce, wait for six months, and so on. It is a pleasure to argue for the equal rights of men. Many male colleagues in this place argue for the equal rights of women, so it is a pleasure to repay them. I feel certain that any man who benefits from the legislation to enter the House will want to continue the tradition of arguing for the equal rights of all, whatever their gender or former profession.
It is right that there should no longer be grounds for distinguishing between clergy of different religions. That is not the business of the House. Equally, there are no grounds for legislation that applies detrimentally or punitively to all clergy, so it is right that the Bill should become law. The matters with which we are dealing are matters for the Churches and for the electorate.
The question whether there is to be a free vote is a red herring. I cannot be sure, but I guess that it is raised by the Opposition who, as has been said, have four, five or more positions on the matter, so there is a problem of discipline. The reason that there is not a free vote for Labour Members, as I understand it, is that this is not an issue of conscience. It is a constitutional issue, so I do not see why there should be a free vote.
I understand that some Opposition Members view the Bill as a matter of conscience, but I do not think that they are correct or that they have a free vote because of that view. They have one because they cannot guarantee that they will be united in the Lobby. As far as I know, no Labour Member has been up in arms about a free vote. None of my hon. Friends have told me since Second Reading that the Bill is a matter of conscience and that they are being forced through the Lobby on Labour business with which they do not agree.
I think that the Opposition's point about a free vote, which has been made a number of times, holds no water and makes no sense. I reiterate that it is entirely correct for the Bill not to be decided by such a vote as it is Government business and deals with a constitutional issue. Indeed, I am pleased that it will not be decided in that manner, although if it had been, the outcome of Third Reading would have been the same as those of Second Reading and Report.
It is right that we are now in line with the Scottish Parliament and the Welsh Assembly.

Mr. Forth: What a shower.

Siobhain McDonagh: It has given you representation in Scotland.

Madam Deputy Speaker: Order.

Ms Ryan: My hon. Friend the Member for Mitcham and Morden (Siobhain McDonagh) makes a valid point about the success achieved by the Conservatives in Scotland, where previously they had no representation.
In an intervention on the hon. Member for Buckingham (Mr. Bercow), I said that he had been a sterling ally in respect of the Bill. However, he made some entirely unjustifiable remarks about what he called the new Labour Government.

Mr. Forth: He has done something right.

Ms Ryan: As has just been indicated from a sedentary position, we still disagree on some things.
It is interesting that every time the European convention on human rights is mentioned, there is a little storm of protest from some Opposition Members. At no time during the passage of the Bill, or indeed at any other time, have they said anything that justifies their opposition to the convention. We await an explanation that makes their view acceptable or even tolerable. I guess that it simply relates to the Eurosceptic views that they often express, so it is clearly a matter of ideology and perhaps of xenophobia.
I have been pleased to participate in our proceedings on the Bill. I have found the experience instructive and have heard some excellent speeches, from which I freely admit that I have learned a great deal. I am pleased that the Bill has such overwhelming support and I am proud to be a part of the House when it agrees to such measures, which ensure the equal rights of all our citizens.

Mr. Fallon: The hon. Member for Enfield, North (Ms Ryan) spoke about removing discrimination and intolerance, but then slightly spoiled her speech by saying how intolerant she was of those who still had doubts about the European convention on human rights. I do not think that she can have it both ways.
I must tell the hon. Member for Hazel Grove (Mr. Stunell) that I am probably in danger of creating a sixth category—there is definitely a free vote for Conservative Members—because, as 1 have explained at length, I have reservations and I do not think that the Bill should be promoted in this way and at this time. I hope that that qualifies as a sixth category, which will make the hon. Gentleman even happier than he already seems to be.
As I have already said endless times, I have nothing against David Cairns. I am sure that he will become a Member of this House in the fullness of time and I look forward to welcoming him. I respect the part played by the hon. Member for Mitcham and Morden (Siobhain McDonagh) in facilitating such change. I hope that she equally respects the fact that those of us who are worried about the way the change is being made are not necessarily to be accused of favouring the kind of discrimination that she seeks to remove.
There are concerns about the procedure, and our debates have highlighted that. We could create the potential for a new House of Commons, which could be a House of bishops. Chat would be allowed under the law. It is perfectly possible that the Roman Catholic Church might change its own rules, so we could end up with a House of Catholic priests. It may be unlikely that such events will occur, but when one makes a small change to the constitution it is important to take into account the implications and consequences.
One of my main reservations throughout has been the lack of evidence, apart from the case of Mr. David Cairns, for making the change. The Home Affairs Committee made its recommendation, but it did not take evidence. It took a memorandum in favour from Professor Blackburn, but it did not question any witnesses or consider the implications and discuss them with other professors. Indeed, there was little further support for the change and it was not mentioned in the Labour party submission to the Committee. If the burning injustice that we have heard about really existed, we might have expected the Labour party to refer to it in evidence.
The plain fact is that this case, which, I concede, is certainly a hard one, has not been canvassed particularly widely. It is not right to make what could be a significant change on the basis of so little evidence. I also happen to think that such changes should be made on the basis of extensive consideration and widespread consensus, possibly through a Speaker's Conference or a commission. A limited consultation took place and the Minister was kind enough suddenly to place the results in the Library today. However, the Committee was unable to read them to discover exactly what each Church has said. We have had only a couple of days to consider the matter and we have considered it in the wrong way.
Furthermore, it is a somewhat questionable principle to change electoral law on the basis of one particular case. I know that others disagree. My right hon. Friend the Member for Suffolk, Coastal (Mr. Gummer) made the eloquent point from history that individual cases have helped to change law, but I am sceptical as to whether that should always be the case. I am also sceptical about making such a change just because of someone's election: the people have chosen, so we should facilitate his or her progress to the House simply because he or she is the candidate that they want—so runs the notion.
That principle could apply to a 20-year-old, for example. The Minister might one day tell the House, "This constituency has chosen someone who will be 21 in a few months. He will not be able to take his seat when he is elected, so there will be a court case and all the rest of it. We must change the law immediately to allow him to take his seat." The same could be argued on behalf of a Dutch citizen. A Dutch minister of some religion might be selected, stand and be elected. The Minister could make exactly the same argument that the law should be changed to accommodate a non-UK citizen simply because that person had been chosen by his constituency.
All I would say to the House is that such constitutional changes almost always turn out to have slightly more impact than we might have expected in respect of the example for which we have legislated. The Bill will help just one candidate, but it raises big questions about the future of the bishops in the other place and further questions about the way in which we should change electoral law. Such a change should not be rushed so late in the day, just before a general election, to help a particular candidate, however deserving he happens to be.

Mr. Swayne: I did not speak on Second Reading, as I was serving on a Standing Committee so I am most grateful to you, Madam Deputy Speaker, for affording me the opportunity to contribute. I know that the Minister wishes to respond, so I shall be as brief as possible.
I represent the fourth view to be expressed this evening. I follow the hon. Member for Enfield, North (Ms Ryan), who spoke eloquently, in holding the view that it is right and proper to take steps to alleviate the difficulty faced by David Cairns. My concern relates to what we have done to alleviate that difficulty. I entirely accept that David Cairns faced discrimination that was unjustifiable—unjustifiable because he was a Roman

Catholic. At this point I can answer the question asked of me by my right hon. Friend the Member for Suffolk, Coastal (Mr. Gummer). He suggested in his speech that had I chosen a career as a clerk in holy orders and discovered half way through that career that it was not right for me, I would have been able thereafter to pursue any other career—

Mr. Fallon: It is a vocation.

Mr. Swayne: My hon. Friend is right, but other careers are careers, not vocations. My point is that, according to my right hon. Friend the Member for Suffolk, Coastal, I would have been able to pursue any career except one in the House of Commons.
In fact, that is not entirely true. In such circumstances I would have been able to come to the House, were I prepared to renounce holy orders. This is the problem in the case of Mr. Cairns: he is being discriminated against in the sense that he is not able, as a clergyman in the Church of England is able, simply to renounce his holy orders, thereby enabling himself to be elected to the House of Commons. It is entirely right that we have provided a remedy enabling his problem to be alleviated; however, our remedy will enable him to come here, but it will equally enable all who are currently practising clergymen in the Roman Catholic Church and the Church of England to do so as well.
As far as the Roman Catholic Church is concerned, that is not a problem, because the Roman Catholic Church takes the view that its clergymen—its priests—should not sit in Parliament. The difficulty for me lies in the fact that clergymen of the established Church will, as a result of this measure, be able to come here and take a political stance. We have had the argument, and I think we must simply differ; but still, in my opinion, that is not compatible with the role of a priest.
My right hon. Friend the Member for Suffolk, Coastal identified the historical reasons for excluding clergy of the Church of England, and intimated that those reasons were no longer valid. I accept that, but it strikes me that there are many good reasons—certainly one good reason—for maintaining the exclusion. I consider leadership, in the sense of the role of a priest in the Church of England, wholly incompatible with membership and political leadership in the House of Commons.
The Bill involves constitutional issues that we overlook at our peril. I believe that this should be an assembly for the laity: after all, the second estate has its representation elsewhere. In the past this place has had a more religious outlook, and that is not a happy history. I remind Members of the Parliament of Saints, and the Barebones Parliament; I remind them that we have allowed ourselves to be governed by prelates in the past, not least by Cardinal Wolsey. We have gone beyond that now, and we should remain beyond it.

Mr. Fallon: Do not drag the Lord Chancellor into it.

Mr. Swayne: I would if it were in order, but time is pressing and the Minister wishes to reply.
I would have accepted a measure that simply made things easier for Mr. Cairns in Greenock and Inverclyde, but what we have is a wider constitutional measure with which I profoundly disagree.

Mr. Forth: What we have learned during the debate on this Bill, small though it may seem and mild though it may appear, is that it contains a number of substantial issues. There is, for example, the issue of history and tradition, which was covered by my right hon. Friend the Member for Suffolk, Coastal (Mr. Gummer) in his usual elegant and knowledgeable way. We need only glance at schedule 2 to see that the repeals go back as far as 1801—as has been mentioned a number of times—and involve six Acts. There is therefore no doubt at all that what is being dealt with in this seemingly small Bill is a substantial part of our history and tradition. From that point of view, it has an importance that perhaps goes beyond its apparent scope.
The matter at the heart of the Bill is whether it is right and proper for the law of this land to seek to determine which members—outside those who have offices of profit under the Crown, as has been mentioned in the debate—of which faith or Church should or should not be able to come to this place. As I have said, I am happy to be in the camp that says that there should be no such restrictions. I have made that very clear and I have no problem with it at all. On that basis, I would be happy for the Bill to proceed. I also think that we all understand why, although it seems paradoxical, the Bill has to provide that Lords Spiritual should continue to be disqualified from membership of this place—obviously because of their position in another place.
Despite the arguments that have been made most eloquently by my hon. Friend the Member for Buckingham (Mr. Bercow), my difficulty with the Bill remains its provenance. It has been said a number of times and in a number of different ways that surely the mere fact that the Bill would happen to help one individual should not stand in the way of the principle. I do not see it that way at all. If that were the case, the Bill should have been introduced earlier and handled in a different manner, and we should not be under the time pressure in which we now find ourselves. I also regret that the amendments tabled by my hon. Friend the Member for Sevenoaks (Mr. Fallon) and me could not be dealt with fully and properly.
The Bill, if passed, would take effect on Royal Assent and thereby enable an individual whom the law would previously have debarred to be elected to this place. I believe that that in itself is sufficient reason for the House not to support the Bill in the circumstances in which we are being offered it. That is why, although I favour the principles of the Bill, I shall oppose it if, as I hope, we divide on it. I think that it is the right Bill, but at the wrong time.

Mr. Mike O'Brien: I ask the House to support the Bill. The Government believe that it is a very important Bill which does have constitutional implications. That is why, in Committee, it was debated on the Floor of the House. It raises issues about the proper role of the state and about the role of the state in relation to the Church.
The Government's view is that we should not tell the Catholic Church or other Churches—I appreciate that there are specific arguments about the established Church—how to run their internal affairs. That should be a matter for them. Today, we are deciding what should be

the law of this land. In my view, the law of this land is discriminatory. It provides that a person such as David Cairns—who was a priest, practised as a priest and remains a priest, although he is no longer practising as such—should not be able to stand for Parliament. The Bill will ensure that he can.
There has been much discussion about priests being defrocked and laicised and other such issues. The fact is that David Cairns does not wish to be defrocked. That is really not a course of action that is open to him. Additionally, the Pope takes a particular view on laicisation, which makes it very unlikely that David Cairns could be laicised. At least in religious terms, therefore, he remains a priest although he does not practice as one. In such circumstances, it is wrong that he should be prevented from standing for Parliament.
As the right hon. Member for Suffolk, Coastal (Mr. Gummer) has said so eloquently, David Cairn's case is in many ways within a tradition in which the House can have some pride. When faced with the Bradlaugh case, after a while—perhaps it needed convincing—the House changed the law. In the early 1960s, when faced with the circumstances of my right hon. Friend the Member for Chesterfield (Mr. Benn), the House again took the decision to change things.
This Bill is right and I commend it to the House. It is a small Bill and a good Bill. I hope that the House will support it.

Question put, That the Bill be now read the Third time:—

The House dividerd: Ayes 196, Noes 15.

Division No. 140]
[6.59 pm


AYES


Ainger, Nick
Caplin, Ivor


Atkins, Charlotte
Casale, Roger


Atkinson, David (Bour'mth E)
Caton, Martin


Atkinson, Peter (Hexham)
Chapman, Ben (Wirral S)


Austin, John
Chaytor, David


Bailey Adrian
Clark, Paul (Gillingham)


Banks, Tony
Clarke, Charles (Norwich S)


Barnes Harry,
Clarke, Rt Hon Tom (Coatbridge)


Barron, Kevin
Clarke, Tony (Northampton S)


Beard, Nigel
Coffey Ms Ann


Beard, Nigel
Cohen, Harry


Beckett, Rt Hon Mrs Margaret

Coleman Iain


Beith, Rt Hon A J
Colman, Tony


Bell, Stuart (Middlesbrough)
Cook, Frank (Stockton N)


Benn, Hilary (Leeds C)
Cooper, Yvette



Benton, Joe
Corbyn, Jeremy


Bercow, John
Cotter, Brian


Bermingham, Gerald
Cox, Tom


Best, Harold
Crausby, David


Betts, Clive
Cryer, John (Hornchurch)


Blears, Ms Hazel
Dalyell, Tam


Blunt, Crispin
Davey Valerie (Bristol W)


Boswell Tim
Davies, Geraint (Croydon C)


Bradley, Keith (Withington)
Davis, Rt Hon Terry (B'ham Hodge H)


Bradshaw, Ben



Brinton, Mrs Helen
Denham, Rt Hon John




Dismore, Andrew


Browne, Desmond
Dobbin, Jim


Bruce, Ian (S Dorset)
Dobson, Rt Hon Frank


Buck, Ms Karen
Dowd, Jim


Burden, Richard
Drown, Ms Julia


Campbell, Mrs Anne (C'bridge)
Eagle, Maria (L'pool Garston)


Campbell, Rt Hon Menzies (NE Fife)
Ennis, Jeff



Field, Rt Hon Frank


Cann, Jamie
Fisher, Mark






Fitzpatrick, Jim
Milburn, Rt Hon Alan


Gapes, Mike
Moffatt, Laura


George, Rt Hon Bruce (Walsall S)
Moonie, Dr Lewis


Gerrard, Neil
Morgan, Alasdair (Galloway)


Gibson, Dr Ian
Morley, Elliot


Godman, Dr Norman A
Mullin, Chris


Godsiff, Roger
Naysmith, Dr Doug


Goggins, Paul
O'Brien, Mike (N Warks)


Golding, Mrs Llin
O'Hara, Eddie


Gordon, Mrs Eileen
O'Neill, Martin


Griffiths, Jane (Reading E)
Öpik, Lembit


Griffiths, Win (Bridgend)
Ottaway, Richard


Gummer, Rt Hon John
Page, Richard


Hall, Mike (Weaver Vale)
Palmer, Dr Nick


Hall, Patrick (Bedford)
Pearson, Ian


Healey, John
Pendry, Rt Hon Tom


Henderson, Doug (Newcastle N)
Perham Ms Linda


Henderson, Ivan (Harwich)
Pollard, Kerry


Hendrick, Mark
Pond, Chris


Hepburn, Stephen
Pound, Stephen


Heppell, John
Prentice, Ms Bridget (Lewisham E)


Hewitt, Ms Patricia
Prentice, Gordon (Pendle)


Hill, Keith
Quin, Rt Hon Ms Joyce


Hood, Jimmy
Rammell, Bill


Hope, Phil
Raynsford Nick


Hopkins, Kelvin
Robertson, John (Glasgow Anniesland)


Hughes, Ms Beverley (Stretford)



Hughes, Simon (Southward N)
Roche, Mrs Barbara


Hutton, John
Ruddock, Joan


Iddon, Dr Brian
Ryan, Ms Joan


Jackson, Ms Glenda (Hampstead)
Sarwar, Mohammad


Johnson, Miss Melanie (Welwyn Hatfield)
Sedgemore, Brian



Shipley, Ms Debra


Jones, Dr Lynne (Selly Oak)
Simpson, Alan (Nottingham S)


Jones, Martyn (Clwyd S)
Skinner, Dennis


Joyce, Eric
Smith, Rt Hon Andrew (Oxford E)


Keeble, Ms Sally
Smith, John (Glamorgan)


Keen, Alan (Feltham & Heston)
Soley, Clive


Keen, Ann (Brentford & Isleworth)
Southworth, Ms Helen


Kemp, Fraser
Spellar, John


Khabra, Piara S
Starkey, Dr Phyllis


Kidney, David
Strang, Rt Hon Dr Gavin


King, Ms Oona (Bethnal Green)
Stunell, Andrew


Ladyman, Dr Stephen
Taylor, David (NW Leics)


Laxton, Bob
Temple-Morris, Peter


Leigh, Edward
Thomas, Gareth R (Harrow W)


Lepper, David
Timms, Stephen


Levitt, Tom
Tipping, Paddy


Lewis, Ivan (Bury S)
Trickett, Jon


Lewis, Dr Julian (New Forest E)
Turner, Dr Desmond (Kemptown)


Linton, Martin
Tynan, Bill


Lloyd, Tony (Manchester C)
Vis, Dr Rudi


Lock, David
Walley, Ms Joan


Love, Andrew
Ward, Ms Claire


McAvoy, Thomas
Wareing, Robert N


McDonagh, Siobhain
White, Brian


McDonnell, John
Whitehead, Dr Alan


McGuire, Mrs Anne
Wigley, Rt Hon Dafydd


McIsaac, Shona
Winnick, David


Mackinlay, Andrew
Woodward, Shaun


Mactaggart, Fiona
Woolas, Phil


McWalter, Tony
Worthington, Tony


Mallaber, Judy
Wright, Anthony D (Gt Yarmouth)


Mandelson, Rt Hon Peter
Wright, Tony (Cannock)


Marsden, Gordon (Blackpool S)



Marshall, David (Shettleston)
Tellers for the Ayes:


Meale, Alan
Mr. Tony McNulty and


Michie, Bill (Shef'ld Heeley)
Mr. Graham Allen.




NOES


Amess, David
Jenkin, Bernard


Chapman, Sir Sydney (Chipping Barnet)
Maclean, Rt Hon David



McLoughlin, Patrick



Chope, Christopher
Paterson, Owen


Fallon, Michael
Robinson, Peter (Belfast E)


Gale, Roger
Swayne, Desmond





Syms, Robert
Tellers for the Noes:


Widdecombe, Rt Hon Miss Ann



Winterton, Mrs Ann (Congleton)
Mr. Eric Forth and


Winterton, Nicholas (Macclesfield)
Mr. Gerald Howarth.

Question accordingly agreed to.

Bill read the Third time, and passed.

Orders of the Day — DELEGATED LEGISLATION

Order read for resuming adjourned debate on Question [28 February],

That the Motions in the name of Mr. Secretary Straw relating to the Electoral Commission shall be treated as if they related to instruments subject to the provisions of Standing Order No. 118 (Standing Committees on Delegated Legislation) in respect of which notice has been given that the instruments be approved—[Mr. Keith Bradley.]

Hon. Members: Object.

Orders of the Day — LIAISON COMMITTEE (SUB-COMMITTEE)

Motion made,

That Standing Order No. 145 (Liaison Committee) be amended as follows:

Line 31, at end add—
'() The committee shall have power to appoint a sub-committee, which shall have power to send for persons, papers and records, to sit notwithstanding any adjournment of the House, and to report to the committee from time to time.—[Mr. Keith Bradley.]

Hon. Members: Object.

Orders of the Day — SCIENCE AND TECHNOLOGY COMMITTEE

Order read for resuming adjourned debate on Question [31 January],

That the Select Committee on Science and Technology shall have leave to meet concurrently with any committee of the Lords on science and technology or any sub-committee thereof, for the purpose of deliberating or taking evidence, and to communicate to any such committee its evidence or any other documents relating to matters of common interest—[Mr. Keith Bradley.]

Hon. Members: Object.

Orders of the Day — SITTINGS IN WESTMINSTER HALL

Order read for resuming adjourned debate on Question [23 January],

That, following the Order [20th November 2000], Mr. Nicholas Winterton, Mr. John Mc William, Mr. Barry Jones and Frank Cook be appointed to act as additional Deputy Speakers at sittings in Westminster Hall during this Session—[Mr. Keith Bradley.]

Hon. Members: Object.

Orders of the Day — SELECT COMMITTEES (JOINT MEETINGS)

Motion made,

That Standing Order No. 152 (Select committees related to government departments) be amended as follows:
Line 40, before the word 'European' insert the words 'Environmental Audit Committee or with the'.—[Mr. Keith Bradley.]

Hon. Members: Object.

Orders of the Day — LANGUAGE OF PARLIAMENTARY PROCEEDINGS

Motion made,

That—

(1) this House approves the First Report from the Procedure Committee, Session 2000–01 (HC 47); and

(2) the Resolution of 5th June 1996 on the Language of Parliamentary Proceedings be amended accordingly by inserting, after the word 'Wales,', the words 'and at Westminster in respect of Select Committees'.—[Mr. Keith Bradley.]

Hon. Members: Object.

Orders of the Day — Metropolitan Police

Motion made, and Question proposed, That this House do now adjourn.—[Mr. Keith Bradley.]

Ann Keen: I am delighted to have the opportunity to debate the terms and conditions of service of the Metropolitan police. Hon. Members are well aware of the fundamental changes that have taken place in the police service throughout the United Kingdom, which have affected every police officer's duties and hours and the structure of their jobs.
We have come a long way after seven years of declining police numbers, and we have finally turned the story round. In the six months to September 2000, we had 444 extra police officers, not fewer. Assaults on police have decreased. Funding for the Metropolitan police has finally increased. There is more need than ever to address the practical realities of being a police officer today.
As we watched the terrible scenes at Selby over the past couple of days, similar to the recent scenes at Paddington, we must have appreciated that our police officers are engaged in the most terrifying of incidents. We must accept that they are individuals, parents and partners. They have families, and when they witness such scenes they must go home to take on their familial roles. That is not easy. Police officers have responsibilities, and if we do not treat them fairly, we will lose their valuable service.
I wish particularly to address the scale of the problem in London. The front-line police officer, normally young and relatively inexperienced, is providing a first-class service to the public of London in very demanding times. Since publication of the Macpherson report, the Metropolitan police have taken great steps forward in their efforts to improve that service to all sections of the London community. It was recently announced that the force had addressed all the report's recommendations.
To coin a modern phrase, a police officer's lot is not a happy one. The conditions of service of the modern police officer have suffered, particularly since the 1994 publication of the Sheehy report, commissioned by Kenneth Clarke, when he was Home Secretary. Michael Howard, the Home Secretary at the time of publication, abolished the housing allowance—

Madam Deputy Speaker (Mrs. Sylvia Heal): Order. The hon. Lady must not refer to right hon. Members by name.

Ann Keen: I apologise, Madam Deputy Speaker.
The Home Secretary at the time of publication abolished the housing allowance paid to police officers, which had for many years been seen as an essential part of the remuneration package by the Police Federation, supported by the Commissioner of Police of the Metropolis. In many cases, that led to police officers receiving thousands of pounds less than their counterparts who had joined before September 1994.
For a number of years, there has been a decline in police numbers throughout the country. In London, however, the shortage has been more acute, with the loss of more than 2,000 officers since 1992. The situation may


worsen. At a recent meeting of the Greater London Authority budget committee, Sir John Stevens said that over the next five years one third of London's police officers and two thirds of the support staff will be eligible to retire from the service. He suggested that ways must be found to encourage them to remain and continue to provide a service to the city of London.
I should like to give an example of a long-serving officer in my area, the borough of Hounslow. Police Constable John Collins has given more than 30 years' service and was rightly awarded the MBE recently for his commitment and work in the community. He joined the police force at 19. He will be 55 this year, and he wants to stay on. He really wants to continue his work in crime prevention, for which he is well known. He has a supportive chief superintendent in Mike O'Brien, who values his service. Constable Collins would like to stay on until the age of 60. He would like to know now that he can do so in order to plan his family life and look forward to his eventual retirement. When someone has done more than 30 years of active service in the police force, it is admirable to want to stay on, and his skills are much needed in crime prevention.
We must recognise the skills of experienced officers in mentoring inexperienced young officers. At the moment, younger officers have only a limited time in which they can benefit from mentoring by older and more experienced officers. We must recognise the work of experienced officers if we wish them to stay and we must be flexible in our approach to the work of our police force.
We have all seen the excellent police recruitment advertisements in the past year. People were asked whether they could deal with a violent incident, a road traffic accident or breaking bad news. We have experienced officers who can do that In this very House, Sergeant Les Lenaghan, an officer with more than 30 years' experience, told me recently of the need for flexibility, especially on pensions. The pension structure is restrictive, and the police officer's pension provides little if any financial incentive to stay on. Morale can then fall, and we need the Government to provide confidence that when the pension review that has been discussed for some time takes place, it will not be divisive and damaging.
A great deal of work has to be done to create confidence among our police officers and make them feel truly valued. In addition, we must find ways to encourage more recruits into the service and, once they are recruited, to retain them. The obvious way is to provide better rewards for front-line duties, perhaps by way of a shift allowance. At present, officers who provide 24-hour policing to the people of London are paid at the same rate as those who protect buildings. Protecting us is serious work, but it is not quite the same as front-line work out on the streets of London.
The return of the housing allowance would at the stroke of a pen boost the morale of today's young police officers. It would encourage Metropolitan police officers to remain in London rather than bring up their families elsewhere. It goes without saying that that would also attract more recruits. Police numbers are rising in London. The last intake at Hendon was 200 and the next is likely to be 250. That follows the introduction of a new London allowance for post-1994 recruits of £3,327 last year, but more needs to be done.
I was pleased to be able to take part in a debate that encouraged people to re-examine retirement. I was pleased that our Minister stated on 14 February that the Government
wants to encourage more flexibility and choice for retirement, with benefits to employers and employees alike. For employers, a flexible approach can be a means of reducing capacity without losing the people concerned or the qualities and expertise they bring to business".
Well, that is business, and the police service is different. Police officers are not employees; they are appointed as police constables. The regulations governing the police were looked at in 1918 and more recently in 1995. I suggest that they need to be reviewed.
We have been made aware of the haemorrhage that is about to occur in our great capital in the next four to five years. We cannot say that we did not have the time to plan and make changes that could bring about a flexible retirement approach for valued officers who have given so much service.

The Minister of State, Home Office (Mr. Charles Clarke): It is a genuine privilege to participate in this debate, led by my hon. Friend the Member for Brentford and Isleworth (Ann Keen), under your chairmanship, Madam Deputy Speaker. I congratulate my hon. Friend on obtaining the debate. It is important to focus attention, as she has done, on the state of affairs in the Metropolitan police service.
I take the opportunity that my hon. Friend gives me to pay a public tribute to the officers of the service. She mentioned officers working in her constituency and officers whom she knew, and described their outstanding personal commitment in times of great difficulty and tension. Communities are strengthened and people given confidence by such commitment. It is important to place that on record.
Let me add to that my appreciation of the tremendous and committed work of all ranks—from the Commissioner, Sir John Stevens, and his deputy, Ian Blair, down through the whole force. There is a major drive in the force at present to ensure that we can deliver right across the range of its services.
Because of the responsibility that I hold, it saddens me that many people form their view of policing from descriptions in some of the media programmes, rather than from the police work that they know about. At the beginning of this week, I visited outer London boroughs to the east of the city, where police officers told me that the characterisation of policing in some fictional programmes does not give a fair picture of the life, commitment, experience and solidarity of working police officers. That is true. The Government will do what we can to address the issues in the ways mentioned by my hon. Friend.
The important issues raised by my hon. Friend stem from many of the recruitment difficulties experienced by the MPS in recent years. We have tried to tackle those issues, through initiatives such as the national recruitment campaign—to which my hon. Friend referred—the crime fighting fund and the starter homes scheme. That scheme attempts to address the massive problem that has arisen for all public services and many private industries throughout London as the economy grows and succeeds.


There is great tension between the rents or mortgages that people have to pay and their salaries. That is why we have increased the London allowance for new recruits, and for officers recruited since 1 September 1994 who do not receive housing emoluments. We have also provided funding for free rail travel for Metropolitan police officers within a 70-mile radius of Charing Cross; that includes my hon. Friend's constituency.
I remind the House that all matters concerning police officers' hours of duty, leave, pay, allowances and pensions must be considered by the Police Negotiating Board, the statutory body set up to make recommendations to the Home Secretary. Sections 61 and 62 of the Police Act 1996 provide for the constitution of the PNB and for the procedure for reaching agreement on recommendations made by the PNB. My right hon. Friend the Home Secretary will consider any recommendations that the PNB makes before amendments to police regulations are made.
Related to the terms and conditions of service are the standards with which recruits have to comply in order to be accepted. We are developing national recruitment standards that will remove unnecessary barriers, provide clarity for applicants and ensure that recruitment standards are clearly job related and non-discriminatory. All aspects of the recruitment process are being reviewed, including entry criteria and medical standards for recruitment.
In the light of some of the ill-informed comments in the media about the attempts of the MPS to address recruitment standards, I make it clear that the Met have been correct in their handling of the matter. The service has tried to remove some of the more outdated restrictions and is determined to do whatever is possible to remove artificial barriers to recruitment, which have been raised in the past in some cases. There has been media controversy about some aspects of that initiative, but the MPS is right to take those actions. I hope, moreover, that the national recruitment standards development programme that I described will help to create a national framework for that work.
Police pay is based on national pay scales, which do not vary from force to force. Starting pay for police officers compares favourably with other public service occupations and professions. A police officer will earn £17,133 on recruitment, rising to £19,170 on the completion of initial training and £20,304 after two years. That reflects the serious responsibilities that police officers undertake and the dangers in which they are sometimes placed. However, it has long been recognised that the cost of living in London is high and London officers receive a London weighting, which is pensionable, and a London allowance, which is not pensionable.
In June 2000, my right hon. Friend the Home Secretary accepted the PNB' s recommendation for an increase in London allowance from 1 July 2000 for new recruits and for those officers recruited on or after 1 September 1994—the post-Sheehy officers, to use the vernacular to which my hon. Friend referred—who are not in receipt of housing allowance.
Metropolitan police officers recruited before 1 September 1994, who are in receipt of either rent or housing allowance, which ranges from £5,126.70 to £9,153—significant sums—also receive a London

weighting of £1,713 and a London allowance of £1,011, totalling £2,724. Metropolitan police officers recruited on, or after, 1 September 1994, and not in receipt of housing allowance, receive a total London weighting and London allowance of £6,051 which is comprised of £1,713 London weighting and £4,338 London allowance.
The PNB has also recently recommended an allowance of £1,000 to be paid to those officers recruited before 1 September 1994 who are in receipt of half-rate housing allowance or flat-race transitional rent allowance, and the Home Secretary will make an announcement on that soon. I am glad that my hon. Friend has been able to secure this debate to highlight the importance of such issues.
The Home Office also funds free rail travel for Metropolitan police officers at a cost of about £2.45 million in the coming financial year.
The Metropolitan police service's arrangement with the Association of Train Operating Companies allows police officers free rail travel within a 70-mile radius of London on production of their warrant card, on or off duty. That came into effect only recently, on 14 February this year, and extends the current arrangements whereby Metropolitan police officers travel free on London Transport buses and the London underground. Police officers will have to buy tickets to cover any rail travel outside the 70-mile limit and the arrangements will not extend to civil staff, the special constabulary or family members.
Free rail travel w ill provide an additional incentive to new recruits and will help to retain serving officers. I am sure that it will also encourage more officers to use the railways with the result that our trains will be safer for everyone to use—a very important consideration.
Funding for the current financial year will come from central provision. The sum for 2001–02 has been made available from the total provision for policing—£8.495 billion—agreed at the outcome of the spending review. The £2.45 million cost of free Metropolitan police rail travel will not reduce the amounts already announced as being allocated to the police authorities through the police grant and the standard spending assessment. The money for the coming financial year will be met from the £91 million announced in the March 2000 Budget for police modernisation.
The starter homes initiative represents an important Government effort, across all public services, to address issues relating to housing costs. The initiative is expected to help about 10,000 key workers to buy their own homes in areas of high-cost housing. Some £250 million will be made available for that over the next three years. Priority will be given to police officers, teachers and nurses—my hon. Friend's former profession.
Bids in the first bidding round have now been received from those organisations, including registered social landlords, local authorities and employers, that wish to run a scheme under that initiative. Bids have been submitted in respect of 14 police force areas, including several bids that cover the Metropolitan police area. The bids have yet to be assessed and funds will be made available in the summer to successful applicants. A second bidding round will take place in the autumn.
My hon. Friend mentioned the national recruitment advertising campaign. To support forces in meeting their recruitment needs, the national recruitment campaign was launched on 30 August last year. The campaign has two


main aims. First, it is designed to provide forces with high-quality potential recruits, which is its obvious focus. However, I give at least as much importance—perhaps, in some ways, even more—to raising perceptions of the status and professionalism of the police at large. It is important that the community as a whole understands what it is to be a modern police officer. The police's responsibilities and how they carry them out are the types of points that my hon. Friend mentioned.
A campaign website carries information on joining the police and allows individuals to respond online for more information. Calls are handled by a professional call centre. Basic details are taken and an information pack is sent out with an outline of the role of a police officer, along with details of how to take an interest further. Potential applicants complete an expression of interest and the call centre forwards those expressions of interest to forces to progress.
The campaign has been extremely successful. By 4 February, more than 100,000 inquiries had been received through the website and call centre, resulting in more than 22,000 formal expressions of interest. That is a significant proportion and a tribute to the way in which the campaign has been able to convey what the responsibilities of a modern police officer are. The Metropolitan police have received 1,946 expressions of interest and a further 1,115 inquiries have been redirected to the Met's own call centre.
The Metropolitan police recently fried out a full-scale review of their recruiting standards and the resulting changes have been made to ensure that the Met are socially inclusive, non-discriminatory and fair. As I said earlier, the changes have brought the Met's recruitment standards into line with those of other police forces in the United Kingdom.
The Met have been allocated a total of 2,044 recruits from the crime fighting fund. These recruits are over and above the force's existing recruitment plans. More than 500 of the crime fighting fund officers will be recruited this financial year. As my hon. Friend said, there is already evidence that police numbers are rising as a result. Police recruitment numbers are increasing as she stated, and we have every reason to believe that we are finally beginning to make an impact after years of declining police numbers in the Met. We are beginning to turn the curve upwards, which is an important step both for its effectiveness and for the morale and confidence of the force.
In Hounslow, at the end of January 2001, police strength was 398 against a budgeted work force total of 411, which means that the borough was 13 officers—or 3.08 per cent.—down on its budgeted total. Civilian strength was 115, compared to a budgeted work force total of 111, so the figure was above budget on the civilian side.
I am advised that the Metropolitan police service has already recruited 1,130 officers this year and expects to be only 100 officers below its budgeted work force target

of 25,600 by the end of March this year. This is very good news. I commend the service on all the work that it has done to deal with its recruitment difficulties.
My hon. Friend mentioned morale. Total wastage in the police force compared with other organisations is very low. The figures for wastage are 5.2 per cent. 4.8 per cent. and 4.7 per cent. in the past three years. The survey of the Chartered Institute of Personnel and Development for labour turnover in 2000 reported a wastage rate of 18.3 per cent. for all employees in 1999, compared with the figure of about 5 per cent. that I have just given for the police.
Most police service wastage consists of retirements; the number of resignations—at 1 per cent. or less in the past three years—remains very small. I want to place those figures on the record because people sometimes glibly accept the argument that there is a serious morale problem in the force. If we compare it with other aspects of the public service and life, the figures for the force are very good. Of course, the police face greater challenges than most other occupations and that makes things difficult. They also face a challenging media environment. That can be problematic, too. However, the position is good, and I pay tribute to the force for its contribution to morale.
My hon. Friend also mentioned pensions. We have three initiatives on that, and I hope that they will bear fruit shortly. First, in the next few months, we shall publish a consultation document on ill health, medical retirements and pensions. That will have important implications for how we deal with the issues. Secondly, we are considering how pension costs are distributed across police forces. That is rather unfair at the moment.
Thirdly, we are looking at the possibility of establishing a funded pension scheme for new recruits, which would transform the budget structure in that relationship. We have been working closely with the Treasury on that. My right hon. Friend the Chief Secretary to the Treasury and I are meeting to discuss the proposal and to try to deal with some of the issues that my hon. Friend raised. Her point about people's desire to commit in a flexible way at the end of their normal working lives is absolutely true. Many police officers want to find a way of doing that and we are actively looking into the possibilities.
I conclude by congratulating my hon. Friend on securing this debate. I am glad that she has given me the opportunity to be as positive as I think the whole country should be about the work of the Metropolitan police.
In the absence of any Opposition Members, it is appropriate to mention that some of them have been very aggressive and have despaired of what is happening in a way that is dishonest and untrue. I am exceptionally glad to have had the opportunity to try to set the record straight.

Question put and agreed to.

Adjourned accordingly at twenty-four minutes to Eight o' clock.